ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Fish

Tim Loughton: What steps his Department is taking to reduce the quantity of discarded fish.

Huw Irranca-Davies: We are committed to ensuring more sustainable fisheries by tackling the important issue of reducing discards. The UK fisheries departments are therefore funding a range of work on discards in collaboration with the fishing industry. Ultimately, however, the solution to the problem will be found at European level, and the UK will play a leading role in agreeing an overarching EU policy on the issue later this year.

Tim Loughton: When I go down to Worthing beach to see the last vestiges of the Worthing fishing fleet, and to buy my fresh cod and have it freshly filleted in front of me, I am all too often told, "We haven't got any, but you should have seen all the ones that we had to throw away." Is it not time that we got rid of the obscenity that is fish discarding, and piloted a scheme that at least allows fishermen to land some of their by-catch and be rewarded for part of it? We should incentivise fishermen with more environmentally friendly policies, and get a fair deal for Britain's fishermen, fish-eaters and fish.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman supports the Government's commitment to tackling the issue of discards. Undoubtedly, as I have maintained, it has always been the people who fill up their trolleys in the supermarkets and fishermen themselves who most hate the idea of discards. We have some innovative ways to tackle discards, including real-time closures, the conservation credit scheme, avoidance of spawning grounds and the high grading ban, of which I am sure he is aware. We will continue to work in the European Union to make sure that we have overarching policies to tackle the issue.

Frank Doran: My hon. Friend will be aware of the increasing anger in the fishing industry on both sides of the border about the way in which the effort control measures agreed at the December Fisheries Council operate in practice. In the Scottish fishing fleet, there are real fears for the viability of the industry. He will also be aware of the innovative and imaginative approach that the industry in Scotland has taken to the sustainability of the fleet. Is he taking the case to Europe, and what does he expect to achieve?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I applaud my hon. Friend for the way in which he has represented, and continues to represent, the issues relating to ensuring a viable fishing industry in his constituency and elsewhere. He is right to say that his local fishermen have led the way, through the conservation credits scheme, and by coming up with some of the most innovative ways to avoid discards and to tackle the issue of the sustainable, viable use of the seas. We continue to have dialogue on the issue with Joe Borg, the European Commissioner. We knew that it was a tough ask of our fishermen to get the balance right for the year ahead, but my hon. Friend and I, and the rest of the House, agree that we have to achieve a sustainable fishery not only for the 12 months ahead, but for the next 10 years and for the long term.

Andrew George: I hope that the Minister will, as invited, visit my constituency and talk to the fishing industry. When he does, he will recognise that, by value, west Cornwall is the most important fishing area in the country within his domain. When he talks to the industry, will he reassure it that the under-10 m fleet will be permitted to have the under-10 m regulations kept under review, particularly with regard to the impact that they have on the unintended by-catch of fish?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the hon. Gentleman for writing to me on the issue, and for representing the interests of the fishing community in Cadgwith and in other places along the shoreline in his area. There are two clear priorities for me this year as regards the fishing industry. The first is to make sure that the commitments that we made in the European Union in the December negotiations are met, and that we work with the industry to meet them. The second is the under-10 m fleet, which is so important to our coast. I encourage the fishermen from Cadgwith, the hon. Gentleman and others to engage with the industry-led advisory panel that we are setting up, because we want to ensure that the under-10 m fleet not only perseveres and holds on along the coast line, but has a viable future. It is vital that fishermen engage with us and talk about the wide remit of how we put them on course for a sustainable, long-term future.

Robert Goodwill: When looking at innovative ways of conserving fish stocks, I hope that the Minister will look closely at what has been done in Iceland, Norway and the Faroe Islands, which have used an alternative way of conserving fish. In the meantime, I know that he has a visit to my constituency pencilled into his diary. Will he look at the whiting quota? My guys on the east coast have already caught their whiting quota, and they will continue to discard whiting if additional quota is not released for them to use this year.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am looking forward to visiting the hon. Gentleman's constituency in the near future. He is certainly right that one of the challenges that we face in how we organise fisheries policy in the EU is getting the balance right, so that we can fish throughout the year. We are in danger of exhausting stocks in the spring, but we also want our fishermen to fish in the autumn and winter. There are difficult choices to make, not only about whiting but about cod and other fish. We always continue to keep the matter under review. Together with the Marine and Fisheries Agency and our scientists, we continue to look at how things are going month by month. However, we cannot escape the fact—no Government can—that we have difficult issues of sustainability on our seas. As I have said, we want to make sure that we are fishing not just this year, but in the next 10, 20 and 100 years and more.

Bees

Richard Ottaway: What estimate he has made of the recent decline in the bee population; and what assessment he has made of the effect on levels of pollination on that decline.

Hilary Benn: There are no reliable estimates on the number of honey bees in the UK, although there is consensus that the numbers have declined since the arrival of varroa in the early 1990s. No assessment has been made of the effect of that decline on pollination. I recently announced additional funding of £4.3 million for bee health, and that includes £2 million for research.

Richard Ottaway: The Secretary of State will be well aware that the economic benefit that agriculture derives from the bee population represents more than £100 million a year. There is widespread concern, not only in agriculture but in suburbs such as Croydon. He has committed funds to the issue, but will he set out more detail? May we have a strategy and a timetable? May we have something that will give confidence to beekeepers? In short, can he get his Department buzzing with activity?

Hilary Benn: The Department has already published its strategy for bee health, and we are doing a number of practical things. The additional funding that I have announced will allow more research to be undertaken. We are bringing together all those who fund research into bees and the diseases that affect them—varroa, foulbrood and nosema. I have also been talking to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, because one of the things that we need to do is encourage new treatments to come on to the market. One of the practical things that the VMD has done to make that happen is to reduce the fee that it would normally charge those who apply for authorisation for medicines; it recognises the need to search for all the treatments and try to get them on to the market as quickly as possible.
	The third part of the funding that I have announced will allow more inspections. National Bee Unit inspectors are warmly welcomed by beekeepers when they visit, and they provide an important source of information that can feed back into our plan for dealing with this important problem.

Roger Williams: Last Saturday, I attended the Welsh beekeepers' convention at the Royal Welsh showground in Llanelwedd, where I met Karl Showler, a well known and well respected beekeeper from my constituency. I was told that more hives have survived and come through the winter in a good state than previously, so there is an element of optimism. However, if we are to deal with varroa in the long term, we will need a bee-breeding programme to encourage resistance to the disease. What is the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs doing to encourage a bee-breeding programme?

Hilary Benn: I am glad to hear about the meeting that the hon. Gentleman attended. One of the problems faced by bee populations is the weather, which has been pretty bad in the past two years. When there is bad weather and the spring comes, there is an impact. The purpose of the funders' forum is to identify where there may be gaps in the research programme and make sure that the funding from the extra resources that we are putting in, and the other work being done on bee health, is applied to the important priorities, so that the problem is dealt with. The whole House recognises the importance of bees to our economy and to wildlife.

Anne Main: Another crucial pollinator is the butterfly, as I am sure the Secretary of State accepts. Butterflies have been declining for 20 years; six species have become extinct and 54 are in massive decline. Butterfly World is an enormous project in St. Albans. Will the Minister visit it and consider giving a similar amount of investment to ensuring the future of butterflies? If he could flutter up to us, we would be delighted to see him.

Hilary Benn: That is a tempting invitation. The hon. Lady has raised an extremely important point. We are putting a huge amount of money into trying to support biodiversity in our countryside. For example, agri-environment schemes, which have just celebrated their 21st anniversary, are all about supporting farmers in providing the kind of habitats in which a range of wildlife, including butterflies, can prosper.

Pitt Report

Graham Stuart: How many of the recommendations made by Sir Michael Pitt in his final report, "Learning Lessons from the 2007 Floods", have been implemented.

Hilary Benn: The Government's response to Sir Michael Pitt's review in December 2008 set out what recommendations had already been implemented and what further steps were required. The Government will report on implementation every six months, beginning in June this year.

Graham Stuart: One of the key recommendations of the Pitt review was the establishment of a Cabinet Committee to oversee flood prevention plans and strategies, yet we learned last month that the Committee has never even met. Thousands of my constituents were driven from their homes in 2007; many of them are traumatised every time they hear the sound of heavy rain. All they ask is that their Government do everything possible to ensure that such a catastrophe is less likely to happen again. Will the Minister confirm whether that Committee has met and, if not, when it will do so? Why are the Government not acting with greater urgency, and when will they take a grip of this issue?

Hilary Benn: We have taken a grip of the issue; and the Cabinet Committee will meet when it needs to. The question is whether we are getting on and doing what is required. I want to update the House: since the floods of 2007, we have completed 55 flood defence schemes that have protected 37,147 homes, which shows a Government who are getting on with it in order to protect people. I also inform the House that yesterday the flood forecasting centre, which was one of the recommendations of Michael Pitt's report, started operation, bringing together the Met Office and the Environment Agency. We are on track to publish the draft floods and water Bill in the spring. We have signed the first six contracts for surface water management plans with Hull, Gloucestershire, Leeds, Warrington, Richmond upon Thames and West Berkshire. We have had 100 applications for the household flood protection grant scheme. We have agreed three demonstration projects that will look at how land management might be able to help us to manage flood risk. That record shows the Government taking the matter seriously, getting on, and making things happen.

Eric Martlew: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the Environment Agency in my constituency, which, following the floods of 2005, has done a magnificent job of building flood defences? Three quarters of the city is now protected, and it was done on time and on budget. However, coming back to the Pitt report, the really important thing is protecting public utilities—the electricity supply, the fresh water supply and the waste water supply. Is that work being done?

Hilary Benn: The short answer to my hon. Friend's question is yes. A programme of work is under way. As I previously reported to the House, one example of that is the purchase by the national grid of moveable defences that can be taken to particular parts of the network that might be at risk. The flood forecasting centre is all about giving better warnings and greater accuracy about where there will be a problem, so that people are forewarned, prepared and can respond.
	I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words about the Environment Agency. I know that his constituents suffered grievously in the terrible floods. It is right and proper that, as well as recognising that we need to do more, the House wants to say thank you to the agency's staff, because the 55 flood defence schemes and 37,000 homes that have been protected since the summer of 2007 are down to their hard work.

Anne McIntosh: The question is about how many of the Pitt report's recommendations have been implemented, so I hope that the Secretary of State will not be coy and will tell us. Following the question by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), will he also confirm that the programme of work that the Environment Agency has agreed with the water companies to protect the critical infrastructure from flooding this spring—before the publication of the Bill—will not be thwarted by any outside body?

Hilary Benn: I do not know what outside body the hon. Lady is referring to. I take very seriously the responsibility to ensure that critical infrastructure is properly protected, as do the water companies and the Environment Agency.
	As for progress on the implementation of Pitt's recommendations, the hon. Lady will see what we published in December, and she will see the first progress report when it is published in June.  [ Interruption. ] I am happy to write to her with further details, if that is what she wants. I have just provided an update on a range of things that have happened since I last reported to the House, and we will carry on implementing Sir Michael Pitt's recommendations. As she will be only too well aware, he himself has expressed satisfaction at the progress that we are making.

Ann Cryer: Have all the householders affected by the 2007 flooding been able since then to get adequate insurance for their properties? Eight years ago, when some 200 households were affected by flooding in Keighley, people had real problems in getting renewed insurance. Because of the good work of the Environment Agency, that has all been put right, and they now have insurance.

Hilary Benn: I am glad to hear from my hon. Friend that that is the case. The circumstances of individual householders will depend on the case and the approach that insurance companies take, but the single most important thing that we did to ensure the continued availability of insurance was to renew the statement of principles with the Association of British Insurers representing the insurance industry. The deal is the continued provision of insurance in return for the increased investment that the Government are putting into flood defence. That is the single most important step that we can take, and that increased investment has allowed me to report that we have completed 55 new schemes since the summer of 2007.

Tim Farron: How many of the recommendations implemented will relieve the threat of flooding to farmland? Given that the 2007 floods saw 42,000 hectares of farmland flooded and therefore unusable for a significant period of time, and that demand for food across the world will double in the next 20 years, does the Secretary of State agree that we cannot allow productive agricultural land to be squandered in that way again?

Hilary Benn: Nobody wants to see productive agricultural land squandered, but in the end there has to be a system of prioritisation. This point has been the subject of debate, and indeed, I was expecting the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) to raise the matter, because we have discussed it. We need a scheme of prioritisation that balances the value of the assets that we seek to protect, the density or sparsity of population, the value of the agricultural land and the number of homes that can be protected. One can cut the prioritisation system a lot of different ways, but the most important thing that we can do to protect more property and, where possible, agricultural land is to increase investment, which is what we are doing.

Brian Jenkins: I face the difficulty that the previous question almost got to the point that I want to make; let me press the Secretary of State. An important part of our consideration of the flooding of agricultural land is the hydraulic survey of the Humber basin, the Trent and the Tame, which will shortly be available. What is the Secretary of State doing to work with authorities that do not suffer flooding in their areas, but that must make preparations to absorb water before it goes down the river basin, flooding property and families further down the river? That is important; when will we get the details, and when will the Secretary of State give us the priorities for the work that needs to be done for future flooding areas?

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend has raised an important point about the way in which we look at the problem. The whole purpose of the catchment flood management plans is to do precisely what he asks, which is to look at a catchment, see where water will come from and where it might flow, and understand what the consequences might be for flooding, so that we can bring everything together and take the right decisions on that basis. A number of plans are being developed involving the East Riding and the Humber, which I know is the subject of some controversy—the Environment Agency has said that it will consult further on the area represented by the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness. But we have to look at the matter on a catchment area basis, so that we can work out where the water will go, how we can manage it and how we can protect as many homes as possible.

David Kidney: It is a curse of our modern times that while Sir Michael Pitt can warn us about the severe risk of dangerous, life-threatening flooding, the Government's chief scientist, Professor John Beddington, can also warn us about severe, dangerous, life-threatening droughts. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in trying to meet both those serious challenges, our reservoirs, our inland waterways and the terrific asset of our network of canals might be part of the solution for the future?

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend is right. One of the tasks that we all face is preparing for a future in which, in some places and at some times, there is too much water and, in other places at other times, there is not enough. The warning of Professor Beddington is extremely timely, and it makes the point that in adapting to the changing climate, which is with us whatever happens while we try to avoid making the problem worse—that is why the meeting at Copenhagen at the end of this year is so important—we must use all means at our disposal to ensure that we conserve and use water as effectively as possible. We have taken it for granted for too long; we have to protect and conserve it much better in future.

Surface Water Charges

David Amess: What progress he has made in his consideration of options for mitigating the effects on water customers of increases in surface water charges.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am pleased to report that United Utilities, about which most of the complaints on this issue have arisen, has in light of representations received taken steps to resolve the problem of disproportionate increases for faith buildings, community amateur sports clubs, scout associations and so on, by reverting to charges based on 2007-08 for those customers—that is, back to rateable value.

David Amess: I am sort of reassured. I have the honour of being joint chairman of the all-party Scout Association group, and the information that the Scouts have given me is a little different from what the Minister has said. They and other charities have clearly made the point that surface water charges in such difficult economic times have damaging effects on voluntary organisations. They have also brought it to my attention that Ofwat has refused to meet the water companies. They are worried that, next year, when the moratorium is lifted, the charges will be crippling because they will be treated the same as multinational companies.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I should declare an interest as the former president of the West Glamorgan Scout Association. We are not out of the woods yet— [Interruption.] I am sorry; that was not a deliberate pun. The principle of surface water charging, whereby a proportionate element is charged to everyone for discharging water is right; otherwise we would have cross-subsidies and would have to get into the question of which organisations should be exempt. Four companies have introduced surface water charging, which, by and large, has been well received because they dealt with it sensitively. Lessons have been learned and the regulator has been fully involved, but we need to keep a close eye on the matter. The regulatory principles and the need to deal sensitively with all community associations are clear. I will personally ensure that that happens and so will the regulator. I encourage any hon. Member of any party who is currently experiencing problems to take the matter first to the water companies, and by all means to bring it to me as well.

Lindsay Hoyle: May I suggest that my hon. Friend gets out of the ivory tower of London? He needs to come to the north-west and learn what is happening to the churches, sports grounds and voluntary groups, which will close and cease to exist. No impact study has been done on the effect of surface water charges—no one is telling us how many churches and sports buildings will close and how many scout groups will cease. The bottom line is that United Utilities needs to be told to back off and not introduce the charge. If need be, we should introduce legislation to stop it—the sooner the better. Let us protect the people we represent.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I understand my hon. Friend's passion about the matter, but let me reiterate: United Utilities has agreed not to put a moratorium on this year's prices, but to revert to 2007-08 pre-surface water drainage charges. It will take 12 months to assess the way forward with the regulator. I have met the company chief executive and the regulator. We have also been in communication with churches, scout associations, sports clubs, our colleagues in Whitehall and fellow Members of Parliament. I welcome the pressure that has been brought to bear and the representations that have been made. As I have said, we are not out of the woods: we need to ensure that the 12 months produces an appropriate review, so that all the groups that have been mentioned are not hit disproportionately. I will keep my eye on the matter, as I am sure my hon. Friend will, too.

Nicholas Winterton: Last week, I asked the Leader of the House to arrange a debate—a topical debate or even a debate in Westminster Hall—in Government time on the matter. She suggested that I question the Minister today, and I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me to do that. The charge is unacceptable. The House has never agreed or introduced a proposal for such a charge for the disposal of surface water. The charge adversely affects many organisations—charitable, sporting and others. United Utilities in the north-west has announced a moratorium, but surely the Minister appreciates that that is only a delay. When will he say that the charge should be stopped and not introduced on any future occasion? That is justice; will he do it?

Lindsay Hoyle: Nationalise it!

Huw Irranca-Davies: I hear the calls for nationalisation, although I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) has suggested that. I repeat that things have moved on in the past few weeks, but we are not fully out of the woods. Events have moved on in that the moratorium has reverted to pre-surface water drainage charges in the United Utilities area. Four companies have introduced the model of charging that we are discussing. In three areas, it has been done proportionately, sensitively and in a customer-facing way. There is a way forward under the regulatory regime.
	The call for legislation is interesting, and I assume that it covers exceptions. If we consider exceptions, I think that we all agree on scout associations, churches and community amateur sports clubs, but would we agree on, for example, consular buildings, fish farms, public houses—perhaps we would—and petrol filling stations, which had exemptions under the previous method of charging? Is that fair and proportionate? There is a way forward and we are getting there. I tell the hon. Gentleman to keep the pressure on, and we will get there.

Barry Sheerman: Is my hon. Friend aware that since the Conservatives privatised the water companies, for those who are in the Yorkshire region, as I am, it is impossible to have a dialogue with Kelder or Yorkshire Water on that or almost any other issue, because the major shareholder in private equity is the Singaporean Government, who are more conscious about surface water in Singapore than they are about surface water in England? Is that not the sad state that we are in, thanks to the privatisation that those people over there on the Conservative Benches introduced?

Huw Irranca-Davies: We are always keen to see any companies out there engaging properly with all hon. Members and their constituents. However, let me reiterate the guidance from the Secretary of State in 2003: "surface water drainage charges" for non-household customers
	"should be set in a way that is sensitive to the actual use of the service by different premises. Premises with large grounds, such as burial grounds, schools, hospitals,"
	and so on
	"may have a large proportion of their land not draining to a public sewer. Companies should be prepared to set their charges...accordingly,"
	and the phasing in of such charges should be considered. I hope—indeed, I can see this now—that lessons are being learned by certain companies. However, we will keep the pressure on and the dialogue going, because we are as concerned as everybody else that the charges are imposed in a proportionate, fair and sensitive way.

Water Shortages

David Taylor: What recent representations he has received on measures to prevent water shortages; and if he will make a statement.

Hilary Benn: DEFRA has received representations on draft water resource management plans for all the English water companies, following consultation last year. These plans set out how the water companies plan to meet demand for water from 2010 to 2035 and to avoid shortages.

David Taylor: Given the Environment Agency's call this week for water meters in every home to protect against future shortages and the evidence given to our Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs inquiry into Ofwat's price review by Citizens Advice that it dealt with 28 per cent. more water debt cases last year than two years ago, does the Secretary of State agree that defining "water poverty" and standardising the charges made by companies on consumers' sewerage and water bills are essential reforms if we are to protect ourselves against future water shortages without penalising poorer households?

Hilary Benn: That is precisely why we set up the review that Anna Walker is undertaking to look at charging. On average, water metering applies in a third of cases, but from memory the percentage ranges from 68 per cent. in Tendring Hundred down to 10 per cent. in Portsmouth. The Government have made it clear that by 2030 we will need near universal metering in those areas of the country where water is in short supply. The direction in which we are travelling is pretty clear. The change has affected the relative position of those who pay through metered charges, as opposed to those who use the other system. That is precisely why Anna Walker is looking at ways in which we can ensure fairer charging, while at the same time ensuring that we conserve water.

Nick Herbert: In a week when the Environment Agency has warned that climate change and a rising population will increase pressure on water supplies and when households have once again seen above-inflation rises in water bills, has the time not come for a new regulatory approach, so that water companies, and not just their customers, are incentivised to conserve and value water? Will the Secretary of State confirm that although the draft floods and water Bill is expected shortly, the Government are planning to drop measures to reform the water industry from that Bill?

Hilary Benn: As I said a moment ago, the draft floods and water Bill will be published in the not too distant future. Clearly, future legislation depends on the legislative programme; the hon. Gentleman will be well aware of the process by which those decisions are taken. It is important that we ensure that the water companies have the right incentives, and part of the purpose of the water resource management plans is to ensure that there is a sufficient supply of water. A range of things can be done in that regard, including encouraging the more efficient use of water in people's homes. In some cases, it might be necessary to improve the supply, particularly in the parts of the country where there is a problem with that.

Derek Twigg: We have one of the wettest countries in the world, we have just had some of the wettest few years on record and we have just been talking about flooding, so does it not beggar belief that there are still problems in some parts of the country that result in water rationing? Should not the regulatory authorities—particularly Ofwat—be doing a lot more, not least to ensure that leakage is reduced? That is still a major problem, and my constituents cannot understand why they have to watch water flowing away down the road and why it takes days, or even months, to sort out the problem and renew the pipes. What communications is my right hon. Friend having with Ofwat to ensure that it improves the reduction in leakages?

Hilary Benn: Ofwat takes that responsibility extremely seriously, and my hon. Friend will be aware that a lot of progress has been made to reduce leakages. However, when water companies have to make a choice about where they make further investment, they need to weigh up the cost of yet further leakage reduction work against other measures that might help to secure and improve the supply. That is the balance that they have to strike, and which Ofwat must consider, but there is no doubt that, in the years ahead, we will have to do more to ensure that we protect and preserve the water that we have.

Patrick Cormack: In the light of these and the previous exchanges, is the Secretary of State really satisfied that Ofwat is performing its prime duty, which is to protect the consumer?

Hilary Benn: Yes, I am satisfied that Ofwat takes that responsibility extremely seriously. Indeed, the water companies will attest to the vigour with which Ofwat performs its duties. In the end, a balance must be struck between the price that consumers pay for water and the investment necessary to address the problems that hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised in this important discussion this morning. I think that Ofwat is doing a good job.

Topical Questions

Graham Stuart: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Hilary Benn: DEFRA's responsibility is to enable us all to live within our environmental means. I wish to inform the House that, from yesterday, only timber from independently verified legal and sustainable sources, or from a licensed forest law enforcement, governance and trade partner, will be used on the Government estate. I have also launched a consultation on how to toughen the proposed European legislation on tackling illegal logging. We believe that there should be an EU-wide prohibition on placing illegally produced timber on the market. I am sure that the House will also want to welcome the establishment of the South Downs national park.

Graham Stuart: The Secretary of State said earlier that no one wanted to squander productive farmland. Why, then, is his Department pushing for compulsory set-aside? Is it because its only public service agreement deals with environmental matters? Is that why food and people never get a look-in at his Department when it comes to the policy crunch?

Hilary Benn: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, but I fundamentally disagree with what he has just said. It is not the case that food and people do not get a look-in. The problem in relation to set-aside is that it was introduced as a production control measure, it brought environmental benefits, and it now needs to be updated. Going back to the question about butterflies raised by the hon. Member for St. Albans (Anne Main), we need to examine how we can continue to derive those environmental benefits from the way in which the land is managed. As I said to the National Farmers Union conference, I do not have an ideological view on how we do that. I welcome the fact that the NFU and others are now looking at a voluntary scheme, and we are now consulting on that. I would encourage everyone to respond to the consultation.

Jim Devine: My right hon. Friend recently visited Nairobi. Will he report to the House what he learned on that visit?

Hilary Benn: We discussed a number of the questions that we have been debating this morning, but the single most important outcome of the meeting of the United Nations Environment Programme Ministers in Nairobi was our agreement to negotiate a deal on tackling mercury. The problem of mercury pollution is felt in many parts of the world. Indeed, I learned at first hand that traces of mercury are now being recorded by the monitoring equipment in Antarctica. This is why we need organisations such as UNEP: if we come together as a world, we can negotiate agreements to deal with environmental problems.

Michael Moore: In recent days, there have been some suggestions of introducing some flexibility into the new regulations on the electronic identification of sheep. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, and does he recognise that there is now an urgent crisis in the hill farms of the UK, which the regulations will make much worse?

Hilary Benn: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that I share the concern that he and many right hon. and hon. Members have expressed. He will also know that, as a result of our efforts, we have already made some progress on easing the impact of those regulations. I am glad to say that at the last Agriculture Council eight countries spoke up, including the UK, to express concern, whereas previously we were part of a smaller group, so the message is spreading. The visit that Commission officials paid to the UK was important, because the Agriculture Commissioner said at the recent Council meeting that he intended to consider what further steps might be taken to ease the impact of implementation. We are putting a number of suggestions to the Commission, so I hope that we can make further progress, because it is very important that we do.

David Drew: My right hon. Friend is proposing six trial areas for wildlife vaccination against bovine tuberculosis. It would be useful to know what criteria will be applied to those trials and when they will be published. Will my right hon. Friend take from me a commendation that in this regard, we are basing what we are doing on sound science—unlike some of the other proposals currently doing the rounds?

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. Clearly, we are looking to run the six demonstration projects in the areas with the highest incidence of bovine TB, a terrible disease that is having an awful effect. The fact that we have an injectable vaccine, which we hope will be available from next summer, provides us with some means to try and deal with the problem. On a visit to the Veterinary Laboratories Agency last week, I met the team working on developing the vaccine: those people are very committed and very expert. I welcome the positive response of the farming community to this announcement, because, all being well next year, we will have some means of dealing with the problem of infection in wildlife.

Nick Herbert: DEFRA now claims that the target to halt biodiversity loss by next year was never realistically achievable. In that case, why did Ministers agree to it? The concern now is that the Government will do what they always do when they miss their own targets—make an excuse and change them. Three hundred and eighty-six of the Government's sub-targets for biodiversity—that is nine out of 10—have been missed, so can the Secretary of State explain that dismal performance?

Huw Irranca-Davies: The setting of what was a very ambitious target was welcomed by very many bodies, including green non-governmental organisations, which recognised that although it was ambitious, it was the right thing to strive for. We now need to focus on the resetting of a target that is both ambitious and realistic, which is to be welcomed. In terms of biodiversity, we are taking relevant steps in all our six priorities. About 88 per cent. of sites of special scientific interest are in favourable or recovering conditions; the agri-environment schemes that I know are close to all our hearts are making good progress; we have introduced the Marine and Coastal Access Bill; and we have funded new international work of more than £8 million on the Darwin initiative. We are thus making good progress, but we know that there is more to do.

David Chaytor: To return to the Environment Agency's statement on water metering, does my right hon. Friend agree that the public's understanding of the need for water conservation is a long way behind their understanding of the need for energy conservation? Is there more work that the Government need to do on that? Secondly—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We just cannot do a "Secondly". We will just do one question.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I agree with my hon. Friend that there is much more to do to ensure that companies and the public at large recognise the value of water. Everybody refers to it as a public asset that literally falls from the skies, but it has a value, and its value is relevant to some of our big objectives, including how we deal with climate change. We are all looking forward to the results of Anna Walker's review, which looks into issues of affordability, metering, tariffs and so forth. I think that it will help to guide proper evidence-based decision making. My hon. Friend thus raises a vital point.

Michael Jack: Pursuant to the question of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), the announcement on the inoculation of badgers was silent about what would happen if diseased badgers—diseased with bovine TB—were found. What does the Secretary of State plan to do to ensure that those diseased animals are removed from wildlife?

Hilary Benn: Many people have raised that point, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for pursuing it. However, it is not as easy as some people say to establish which badgers have TB and which do not. There is no reliable in-field test to answer that question, which is why the injectable demonstration project is so important. Every badger that is caught can be inoculated, and that will, over time, reduce the burden of the disease on those badgers. The animal welfare legislation makes clear what people should and should not do if any animal is obviously in a very distressed state.

Laurence Robertson: We rightly have high animal welfare standards in this country, and I would not wish them to be lowered, but is it not rather unfair to our farmers that so much food is imported from countries outside the European Union whose animal welfare standards are far less stringent than ours? What can the Government do to redress that unfairness?

Hilary Benn: I think the House should welcome the fact that we have such high animal welfare standards. I know that the hon. Gentleman takes that view. We have, for example, the freedom food assurance scheme—sponsored by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—which goes beyond the legal requirements, and we have seen a rising demand for free-range eggs in recent years.
	The World Trade Organisation's rules do not allow for discrimination on the basis of the system of production. I think that the answer to the hon. Gentleman's very important question is that we should ensure that the public have more information about the way in which the food is produced, so that they can support higher welfare standards through their choice of what to buy.

Simon Hughes: Given the importance of upland hill farmers to our biodiversity in Britain, and given that 85 in 100 hill farmers across the United Kingdom have no likely successors, would Ministers be willing to meet colleagues from Scotland, Wales and England to discuss a hill farm apprenticeship scheme, so that we can not only preserve employment in the uplands but protect the biodiversity of this wonderful country?

Hilary Benn: I should be extremely happy to have such a meeting. In fact, when I leave the House today I shall go to a round-table meeting that I have convened to discuss the question of skills and the future of agriculture and horticulture, and I shall raise the hon. Gentleman's suggestion there.
	The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the support that we are providing through the upland entry level scheme which will replace the hill farm allowance. We published the proposals recently after a good deal of consultation. I am grateful to all who contributed to that consultation. I am also grateful for the warm welcome that the announcement received, because it is a demonstration of the Government's commitment to look after the land and the people who work on it.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The Solicitor-General was asked—

Rape (Victim Support)

David Chaytor: What steps she plans to take to provide greater support during rape cases brought by the Crown Prosecution Service for those who have been raped, in the light of the findings of the Equality and Human Rights Commission's "Map of Gaps" report.

Julie Morgan: What further plans she has to provide assistance to women victims and rape support groups.

Vera Baird: Local authorities identified by the "Map of Gaps" report as having no services for women victims of violence have received letters from the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission seeking their responses, and I am in the course of writing to local Members of Parliament to ask them to take an interest in the issue. Although most authorities are providing local services, the Government contributed an extra £1.1 million last year, and have committed an extra £1.6 million this year, to ensure that those services are funded. I welcome the publication of an updated Crown Prosecution Service policy for the prosecution of those who commit rape.

David Chaytor: Is it not striking that 30 per cent. of English local authorities provide no service whatsoever, whereas in Wales and Scotland there is 100 per cent. coverage? What more can my hon. and learned Friend do to enforce the requirement for every local authority in England to provide an appropriate service and to do so quickly?

Nicholas Winterton: Give them the money.

Vera Baird: My hon. Friend has put his finger on the point—and the Conservative Member who shouted something about money has missed the point entirely. Under their local area agreements, local authorities are sent funds which most of them spend appropriately on delivering services, although some, lamentably, do not. The commission has written to authorities precisely because it wishes to establish whether there has been a breach of the duty imposed on local authorities to render gender equality to their public. If it finds that such breaches have occurred, legal action can and, I imagine, will be taken.

Julie Morgan: "The Map of Gaps" shows that there has been reasonable progress in Wales in the criminal justice and statutory system, but many women victims still feel unable to go to the police. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that there is a case for providing more voluntary sector services, and particularly women-only services, which women find it easier to go to?

Vera Baird: I agree completely. Women-only services are key in situations where someone is feeling vulnerable and asserts that they have been attacked by a man; women find it more reassuring if they are sure that a woman will attend to them when they go for help. One slightly suspects that some of the defects that seem to be apparent in "The Map of Gaps" may arise because, although some of the services are in place, they are not solely for women so women are not using them or they are not adequate for women's needs. I strongly agree that it is key at this vulnerable time that women can be sure that they will be able to talk to women only.

Michael Penning: Everyone in the country and the House will agree that rape is an abhorrent and disgusting crime, and that those who are found guilty of it should be named and shamed and serve their punishment, but is it really fair for a person who is found not guilty to have had their name dragged through the press while the trial takes place? Should there not be a more level playing field for those who are found innocent of this crime?

Vera Baird: If the hon. Gentleman is advocating that there should be anonymity for all defendants in all criminal cases until conviction, that is a principle that would have to be considered by Parliament, but it has turned its face against that and believes that all defendants should be named. There is nothing special about rape cases, because allegations of murder or paedophilia, for instance, are very damaging to the individual concerned as well. Unfortunately, if we were to do what the hon. Gentleman proposes, the inference would definitely be that there is some special reason to protect male defendants in rape cases against women, and the inference would be that there are more false complaints in rape cases than in any other cases, which simply is not true. Therefore, I am afraid that I am completely against what the hon. Gentleman proposes.

Peter Bone: Does the Solicitor-General accept that there is not the support that there should be for victims of human trafficking outside London who have been repeatedly raped?

Vera Baird: No distinction is to be drawn in terms of delivery of services between victims of trafficking who have been raped and other people who have been raped, as they are, of course, all entitled to call on the support services. The hon. Gentleman is, perhaps, right about the availability of accommodation in London, but I believe that there are agreements in place between the POPPY project, which is the main supplier of accommodation, and some other women's groups to make sure that some accommodation and support is available outside London as well. That emerged as part of Operation Pentameter 2, with which the hon. Gentleman is familiar.

Katy Clark: My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that until May 2007 the funding for women's aid groups and other groups providing support for women in Scotland was ring-fenced. The loss of that protection means that funding has been cut to those organisations. Does she agree that we should look into that because there should be core funding of those essential services?

Vera Baird: My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), who asked the first question, referred to the better spread of services in Scotland, which was possible because they were funded centrally until the date my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark) mentioned. The view is that these essentially local services should be provided locally, and I believe the Scottish Government now share that opinion. The funding is not sufficient, however, and I can assure my hon. Friend that work is going on within the Government Equalities Office and my own Department to try to work out a sustainable funding plan for those services.

Serious Fraud Office

David Taylor: What use the Serious Fraud Office has made of money retained under proceeds of crime legislation in meeting its objectives in the last five years.

Vera Baird: The SFO retains a share of funds recovered under the proceeds of crime legislation through the asset recovery incentivisation scheme. Following the Balfour Beatty judgment in October, £2.25 million was recovered and the SFO is due to receive about £1 million of that, which will be used to continue to fund its operations.

David Taylor: The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 was introduced by the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), who now says that the legislation was
	"intended to bankrupt those who made enormous amounts of money out of Criminal Behaviour."
	How well does my hon. and learned Friend feel that that ambition has been realised, and what level of assets is being left for victims of crime to seek compensation via the civil recovery route?

Vera Baird: My hon. Friend raises an important point. The SFO has had the powers to do civil recovery only since last April, and it has had to go through an accreditation process to facilitate that. Once again, however, he has put his finger on the point: compensation to victims takes priority over assets recovery, and in cases pursued by the SFO, almost always the real intention is to get the money back into the hands it is being defrauded from. I have no doubt that more can be done, however, to make effective use of the Proceeds of Crime Act, and I know that efforts are being made in the SFO in particular to ensure that that does follow.

Mark Pritchard: But is it not the case that for every crime committed, all of society suffers? In particular, there is the huge cost of feeding, housing and guarding criminals. Will the Solicitor-General consider extending or perhaps reviewing existing legislation to ensure that wealthier criminals actually pay for their time when they are in prison?

Vera Baird: That is a very interesting point and I shall spend a lot of time dwelling on it over Easter, although it is not actually the responsibility of my department.

Jonathan Djanogly: What steps is the Solicitor-General taking to address the serious deficiencies shown up in the SFO by the recent—I say recent, but it was nearly a year ago now—de Grazia report, and will she respond to the letter I sent to her about this more than six weeks ago?

Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman really ought to look back at the answer I gave him the last couple of times he raised this issue. The de Grazia report was a considerable time ago now and, as he knows, Richard Alderman has come in and made significant management changes that we are confident will take the matter forward.  [ Interruption. ] The hon. Gentleman asks what they are, but I have told him a million times. He always asks me the same question: he asks, "Aren't these changes a sign of deterioration?", and I say, "No, they are a sign of an improved management structure." He is most welcome to talk to Richard Alderman himself.

Torture

David Davis: Whether any cases of alleged UK involvement in torture overseas other than that of Binyam Mohamed are being investigated by the Attorney-General.

Vera Baird: The Attorney-General is not carrying out investigations. The Law Officers have an independent constitutional role as guardians of the rule of law and of the public interest. We will ensure that any further such cases of possible criminal wrongdoing that are sent to us receive careful consideration and are referred for police investigation if that is appropriate.

David Davis: I thank the Solicitor-General for that answer, but I have to ask her, why not? At the end of last week, senior sources in MI5 and MI6 admitted that there were some 15 other cases similar to the Binyam Mohamed case, and at least one—the Rangzieb Ahmed case—has gone to trial and completion. There was an admission in court by MI5 that it had co-operated with the Pakistani authorities at a time when Mr. Ahmed had had his fingernails removed by those authorities. Can the Solicitor-General therefore tell us why not, because in these circumstances, it seems to me that justice should be done in all cases, not just in one?

Vera Baird: I am not sure what the right hon. Gentleman is asking me "Why not?" about. If he is asking me why the Attorney-General is not carrying out investigations, it is because they are done by the police; she has no separate cohort of investigating officials. The role that the court gave to her was of securing the public interest. The rule of law by the United Kingdom has been set in motion by reference of the issues in this matter to the Attorney-General, so she will, in all cases received by us from any other Government Departments, carefully consider them by a proper process and decide whether the police should investigate. Any investigation will follow from the police in the normal way, and of course it is perfectly open to anyone to go to the police and request an investigation, as well.

David Winnick: Does my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General—and, I hope, the Attorney-General—accept that these are the gravest allegations: that people have been tortured with the knowledge and compliance of security officers? Is it not also absolutely essential that the investigation by the police—the Metropolitan police, in one case—should be carried out as quickly as possible? There is a suspicion that this is being delayed endlessly, which is unacceptable.

Vera Baird: I agree that it is necessary for an investigation by any police force—and in this case too—to be carried out with whatever dispatch is compatible with it being rigorously done and a proper conclusion being reached.

David Howarth: I agree with the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) that these are grave allegations indeed. May I ask the Solicitor-General about another aspect of this? It is possible, under the Intelligence Services Act 1994, for Ministers to authorise Crown servants to commit illegal acts abroad. Can she assure the House that no such authorisations have been issued in these 15 cases?

Vera Baird: I know of no 15 cases, although I have seen speculation about numbers in the press— I comment not at all about any number of any kind. I have no knowledge of any such order being made; as I say, there are no 15 cases of which I am aware. I agree wholeheartedly that torture is wholly unacceptable. These cases—if they come forward and if there are more—will be looked at with the utmost care, with a view to ensuring that any possible criminality will be investigated by the police.

Crown Prosecution Service

Fiona Mactaggart: What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the Crown Prosecution Service's charging policy in cases of repeated fraud; and if she will make a statement.

Vera Baird: The decision on whether or not to prosecute is taken in accordance with the principles set out in the code for Crown prosecutors issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

Fiona Mactaggart: The Solicitor-General has been very helpful to me, and to my constituents, in the case of a major fraud, but one of the problems with fraud is that of repeat, relatively minor frauds. My constituent, Parmanjeet Sandhu, has been a victim of a woman whom she knows as Suzanne Halim. This perpetrator also goes under the name of Soad Al Majeed and has many other aliases, but is not being prosecuted because the Crown Prosecution Service does not believe that it can secure a conviction. One of the phenomena about fraudsters is that they are very good at covering their tracks, so will the Solicitor-General talk to the CPS about whether there are better ways to protect our constituents against repeat fraudsters?

Vera Baird: My hon. Friend is a fierce defender of her constituents' rights, and she has come to me with an earlier case. I am grateful to her for saying that I have been helpful—I hope that I can be as helpful on this matter. The calibre of the police investigation is what matters, but it is always open to the police to look again at a case if additional information emerges. In this case, it sounded to me as though she may have additional information in which the police might be interested. As she says, I believe rightly, the case is not going to be prosecuted as things stand, so I urge her to make the appropriate contacts.

Prosecutions (Children)

Anthony Steen: How many prosecutions there have been of children at or above the age of criminal responsibility in each of the last three years?

Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman asks about the number of people who are prosecuted at around the age of criminal responsibility, and I can tell him only who has been prosecuted in the youth court over the years about which he inquires. The CPS prosecuted just over 118,000 young offenders in 2006, 134,000 in 2007 and 119,000 in 2008—those are approximate numbers, but I can give him the chapter and verse if he wants that.

Anthony Steen: The CPS guidance of 2007 was updated in 2009 to instruct police and the prosecutors to refer to the UK Human Trafficking Centre regarding the identification of trafficked children. However, the guidance is not being consistently implemented, and children found in cannabis factories are being prosecuted and sent to prison—a number of cases are outstanding in the courts. Will the Solicitor-General meet a number of the non-governmental organisations that are concerned about this and wish to discuss the fact that the CPS is not following its own guidelines?

Vera Baird: We do meet the third sector; the inter-ministerial group that looks into trafficking on an ongoing basis itself has a stakeholder group, which is comprised of the very people to whom the hon. Gentleman is referring. I am very willing to meet anyone further about the matter, but he must bear in mind the fact that that guidance is in place and is observed. It is by no means the case that all Vietnamese young people—this is who he is talking about—who are found in cannabis factories are trafficked, so there may always be decisions taken to prosecute such people because those decisions are compatible with the evidence that these are not trafficked people; indeed, they are not necessarily as young as they at first sight appear. Of course I shall meet anyone whom he wishes me to meet, if he is worried about this.

Business of the House

Alan Duncan: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the forthcoming business?

Harriet Harman: The business for the week commencing 20 April is as follows:
	Monday 20 April—A general debate on defence procurement.
	Tuesday 21 April—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Industry and Exports (Financial Support) Bill, followed by: the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration.
	Wednesday 22 April—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.
	Thursday 23 April—Continuation of the Budget debate.
	Friday 24 April—Private Members' Bills.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 27 April will include:
	Monday 27 April—Continuation of the Budget debate.
	Tuesday 28 April—Conclusion of the Budget debate.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 23 and 30 April will be:
	Thursday 23 April—A debate on the report from the Foreign Affairs Committee on overseas territories.
	Thursday 30 April—A debate on DEFRA's Darwin initiative.

Alan Duncan: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business. However, I and others are concerned that Government business appears to be in a rather chaotic state. The equality Bill and the child poverty Bill were in the Queen's Speech, but have not been published. The draft floods and water Bill that was promised has not been published either. We were also promised a statement by now on the heritage protection Bill, because the Government have dropped it, but we have heard nothing. The selection of names to sit on the Autism Bill Committee has not been taken forward. Can the right hon. and learned Lady please explain what on earth is going on in all those areas?
	We are pleased that the Chancellor is to give a statement to the House on the G20 this afternoon. We called for that and we are glad that the Government will come to the House before we rise for the recess. Many will conclude that the conduct of some of the demonstrators created a poor image for Britain, so perhaps we might all take the opportunity to appreciate, in contrast, the authority and dignity of Her Majesty the Queen at moments such as this. She is a unique asset for Britain—for which we should be proud and grateful.
	May I seek the views of the Leader of the House on motion 23 on today's Order Paper and ask her to add her name to it so that it can be debated and voted on? We all appreciate that the House should not interfere in the judicial process, but in this case there is confusion and even anger in the House about the ground rules that should govern the applicability of privilege when a Member is so directly involved. It is for the House to address matters of privilege, and we have the Committee on Standards and Privileges to advise us. The impression is being given that we have decided not to address the matter, but would rather leave it hanging. That is not the case. It is the right hon. and learned Lady's refusal to endorse this motion that is preventing us from debating it and referring it to the Committee on Standards and Privileges. Will she now allow this motion to go forward so that the Committee can study the whole issue without her blocking it any longer?
	Yesterday, Sir Andrew Foster published a damning review of the catalogue of failure in Ministers' management of further education colleges. The Secretary of State said yesterday in a written statement that he would give a further statement after the recess. Will the right hon. and learned Lady confirm that this will be an oral statement, and can she further promise another debate on this crisis that the Government have created?
	Once again, may I ask for a further debate on Regional Select Committees? The whole set-up is becoming ever more farcical as each week goes by. The North East Committee is in disarray, the South West Committee was barely quorate, and the West Midlands Committee—scheduled to take place in Birmingham, appropriately at the old Custard Factory—was cancelled because members were not prepared to turn up. When will she be prepared to admit that this whole innovation is an embarrassing mistake?
	Given the growing anger at Lord Myners's apparently inaccurate witness to the Select Committee on the Treasury, hon. Members will want to see him questioned further until we get the full truth. May we also have a statement even from the Prime Minister himself about the conduct of and his confidence in that increasingly tarnished Minister?
	Furthermore, may we have a statement from the right hon. and learned Lady on her equality Bill? It would appear that Lord Mandelson now wants to block it and is in a somewhat unequal struggle with her, the supposed equalities Minister.
	Despite her difficulties with Lord Mandelson, the right hon. and learned Lady has many supporters elsewhere. May I refer her to an article that appeared this week in  The Daily Telegraph, which made this claim:
	"On current form, she is doing a first-class job"?
	Unfortunately, it was an article that referred to her as a Conservative plant, designed to insinuate her way into the top tiers of the Labour party, "destroying" it "from within". May I therefore offer her my personal congratulations, and also wish her a very happy Easter? I hope that she can be my Easter bunny and not a hot cross bun.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman asked about the child poverty Bill and the equality Bill. Both will be coming forward. Not only I, as Minister for Women and Equality, but the whole Government are committed to fairness and equality. That is why we put the equality Bill in our manifesto. That is why it was in the draft legislative programme and why it will be brought forward— [ Interruption. ] Opposition Members call out, "Who's against it?" That is very good news; it is great if we can have the support of the whole House for that important measure.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the important work of the G20 summit. As he said, there will be a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer at 5 o'clock. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the demonstrations, and I want to place on record the fact that the overwhelming majority of the demonstrations were peaceful protests, with people exercising their legitimate right to demonstrate in the streets. I pay tribute to the police for their work, which included dealing with the very small minority who sought to disrupt the summit and the peaceful protest.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about the motion on the Order Paper on privilege. I do not want to delay the House for too long on that point, but the reason I will not support the motion or bring it to the House is that it is for the police to investigate criminal matters or alleged criminal matters, and it is for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide what evidence it is necessary to bring before the court to secure a conviction, if there is going to be a prosecution. It is for the court to decide what is admissible in evidence. It is not for any Committee of this House to decide what is or is not admissible in evidence. If there is a question of the privilege of the House and the House wants to assert its privilege in court, it can do so via the office of the Attorney-General acting as amicus curiae.
	There is a difference of view between the shadow Leader of the House and me on this point. I have sought the Attorney-General's advice and she confirms my view of the legal situation. I know that the Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee has also asked for the Attorney-General's advice, and on that basis no doubt that advice will be made plain. As Leader of the House, my concern is to ensure that we do not impinge on a criminal investigation, that Members of Parliament are not above the law and that we protect our privilege, but do so appropriately.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about further education colleges. I want to thank Sir Andrew Foster for the report that he has helpfully produced. He talks about the excellent programme of capital investment in FE colleges that has transformed more than half the estates of those colleges, with benefits for countless students, staff and entire communities. He says that the programme has helped the skills in our economy and added to our global competitiveness, but concludes that it has been mismanaged. The Government are considering his important and helpful report, and we will be updating the House about it.
	The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) talked about the South West Regional Committee. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) is in his place, and he will attest that there was rigorous examination by—

Andrew Robathan: It had only three members!

Harriet Harman: There would be more if Opposition Members joined the Committee. There was rigorous questioning of members of the local regional development agency about what they were doing to make sure— [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Robathan, you are a senior Whip and therefore you should behave yourself and show a good example. You are not doing that. The Leader of the House has been asked a series of questions and is giving replies.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud may sit on the Labour Benches but he is a fierce champion of his constituents and the region and there was proper cross-examination of the evidence put forward by the RDA. Opposition Members know that the Regional Select Committees have been set up as part of a pilot programme. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton asks whether they should be scrapped and re-examined, and we have agreed that they should be kept under review. The pilot will last for one Parliament only but the evidence from the sitting of the South West Regional Committee suggests that it is doing a very good job. I urge hon. Members to join the Committees' work.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about Lord Myners. I remind the hon. Gentleman that Lord Myners helped to save that bank when it was falling off the edge of a cliff, in stark contrast to those who had been running it. In addition, Lord Myners takes no pay, which is also in stark contrast to those who had been running that bank. He is doing important work on behalf of the Government.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the membership of the Committee considering the Autism Bill. That private Member's Bill is on course to have its first sitting on 29 April.

Kim Howells: The Leader of the House will be aware of the growing problem of film piracy and intellectual property theft in the entertainment industry, which is one of the country's most important employers and earners of foreign currency. In 2007, film piracy alone cost the UK film and television industry a staggering £486 million—money that could have been put to better use funding British talent and financing the next "Slumdog Millionaire" or "In Bruges". Will my right hon. and learned Friend therefore consider holding a debate on the issue of piracy in the creative industries and its effect on our economy?

Harriet Harman: I know that my right hon. Friend has a longstanding commitment to the arts and that he has a fine record as a Minister with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. He knows the importance of the film industry to this country. Perhaps he can bring that to the attention of Ministers on the Monday when the House returns.

David Heath: I, too, welcome the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to make a statement this afternoon—although, had the House been sitting tomorrow, it would have been better to get a report then from the Prime Minister.
	It is likely that one of the clear conclusions of the G20 summit will be that there should be a global crackdown on tax evasion, so can we have a debate in this House on that subject? We should look in particular at the position of the British overseas territories such as the Cayman Islands, the Turks and Caicos Islands, the British Virgin Islands and the Crown dependencies. We should also look at the position of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and how it treats what it describes as "high-risk corporates". That term basically means that the bigger and richer a firm is, the less HMRC will chase it for tax, and that cannot be right.
	The Home Office gave a solemn undertaking to the High Court that a statement would be made to the House before 24 April about the Gurkhas' right of domicile. We have not yet had that statement. The Budget statement is on 22 April, so will the Leader of the House tell us categorically when the Home Secretary will come to the House to make that statement?
	I wholeheartedly welcome the speedy response to the suggestion by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) that the party leaders come together to talk about MPs' expenses. The suggestion was taken up by the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), and indeed the Prime Minister. Not only do those talks need to take place urgently, but they need urgently to be reported to the House, so that other Members have an opportunity to express a view. I think we all agree that something needs to be done as a matter of urgency—we cannot go on like this. It is unacceptable both for us and for the world outside.
	While we are talking about remuneration in the public sector, may we shortly have a debate about what seems to be the rapidly escalating cost of appointments to non-departmental public bodies—the quangos? It seems to me that the amount of money being given to people who serve on those bodies is going completely over the top. The leader of the Infrastructure Planning Commission is the latest: £184,000 a year for a part-time, non-executive job. That is vastly more than the Prime Minister is paid. May we have a debate on that matter?
	Last week, I drew attention to the shenanigans in the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill Committee, where as a result of an incompetent Whip, feckless Labour Members and a hapless Minister, the Government lost votes, so after business questions the Whips threw all their toys out of the pram and decided that the Committee would sit all night—for 17 hours—and complete the Bill, leaving a day free. That is the politics of the kindergarten; it is not a way of seriously considering legislation, so can the Leader of the House give me an assurance that when the Bill returns to the House on Report we will have enough time for sensible, reasoned consideration of its measures, and that she will not attempt to guillotine it so that we again have rushed legislation that has to be amended in another place?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman asked about tax evasion. No doubt he can raise that with the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon when my right hon. Friend makes his statement on the G20 summit. Tackling offshore tax havens has been very much at the centre of discussion at the G20 today. The Government are working internationally to make sure that we clamp down on tax havens, but we also work every year in the Budget and through the Finance Bill to make sure that we plug tax loopholes. As I announced earlier, there will be a debate on Thursday 23 April on overseas territories, when no doubt such issues could be considered.
	I will look into the question of pursuing progress on the response to the Gurkhas that the hon. Gentleman asked for. I will write to him about that, and perhaps when the House returns I will take the opportunity to tell the House if there is something substantive.
	On the question about the allowances we receive so that we can do our work as Members of the House, I refer the hon. Gentleman to what the Prime Minister said yesterday. I will not actually read out the words, but it was clearly set out that the Prime Minister was happy to have a meeting with other party leaders, that he thought action needed to be taken, that all parties could agree that the Committee on Standards in Public Life could do a good job looking at the issues and that he had asked it to speed up its review so that it could be completed as quickly as possible. That is the course of action and approach that should be taken; we should work across the parties and with the independent Committee on Standards in Public Life.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned remuneration, both pay and bonuses, of people on non-departmental public bodies. We agree that we have to keep a careful eye on not only the pay but the bonuses of chief executives and top managers of NDPBs. This is public money, and we do not want people feeling that there has been a race to the top, following the excesses in the finance industry, that has affected pay and remuneration levels in the public sector. I agree with the sentiments that lie behind the question and reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government and all Departments and Ministers are looking at it. He will know that we seek to take action in the finance sector, not only internationally through international agreements on remuneration to tackle risk taking and excess, but also with work through the Financial Services Authority to make clamp-downs on remuneration part of its work on corporate governance.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill, which we regard as a very important measure. It will guarantee education up to the age of 18, and apprenticeships in the future for all those who are suitably qualified. That is very important indeed. The Bill contains more than 200 clauses and insufficient progress was being made in Committee. Extra time was made available for scrutiny, with many extra hours for Committee sittings, and after those extra hours progress was indeed made.

Kelvin Hopkins: School league tables have just been published and yet again we see wide dispersion of performance between schools and a fairly wide dispersion between schools with similar social composition. I am absolutely convinced that the crucial factor for success in schools is teaching methods and classroom regimes, yet we still seem reluctant to address them directly. Will my right hon. and learned Friend make space for a debate on teaching methods, to make sure that all our children have the best possible advantages when in school?

Harriet Harman: The skill level of children is a question not just of fulfilling their individual potential, but of the future prospects of the economy. No doubt, education will come up in the Budget debate and perhaps my hon. Friend and other Members on both sides of the House will be able to raise those issues then.

Charles Walker: On 3 March, secondary schools in Hertfordshire were notified by the Learning and Skills Council of their sixth-form funding settlements. On 30 March, they received another letter saying that their funding settlement was to be cut by £2.1 million, or on average £40,000 per school. May we have a statement about that from a Minister so that we can understand what is going on?

Harriet Harman: I would have been able to give the hon. Gentleman a more substantive answer if he had let me know, even five minutes beforehand, that he was going to raise that question. I would then have been able to give him the information he requires. I am not fully across all the detail, so I cannot confirm whether that is our understanding of the situation. I shall bring the matter to the attention of my colleagues in the Department concerned.

Gordon Prentice: Does my Friend have any sense of when the Postal Services Bill is to come here from the Lords? May we have an early debate on the very important report from the Business and Enterprise Committee on the Postal Services Bill, which is hugely controversial on the Labour Benches?

Harriet Harman: As my hon. Friend knows, the Lords set their own timetable, so it would not be proper for me to say when they will be finished with their considerations or when the Bill will come to the House. When it does, it will no doubt have full scrutiny and full debate.

Michael Penning: May I reiterate the calls for a debate on the Learning and Skills Council building programme—or lack of one? In Hemel Hempstead, the head of West Herts college has told me that her programme, which is part of the town centre redevelopment, is under threat. The teaching of young people is under threat because of the chaos in the funding programme. We cannot just dismiss that; we must have a debate and thrash out what the hell has gone on that is undermining the building programme in the sector.

Harriet Harman: We acknowledge that there has been mismanagement, and it is disappointing for all those who have been affected by it—indeed, the chief executive of the Learning and Skills Council has resigned. However, if the policy of the hon. Gentleman's party was pursued— [ Interruption. ] I am sorry, but from my point of view those complaining about the further education colleges in their constituencies do not have a shred of credibility when their policy is to cut the programme by £600 million. I am concerned about West Herts college and I would not dream of subjecting it to the equivalent of £600 million-worth of cuts.

Albert Owen: May we have a debate on the importance of the tourist industry to the UK economy? Visit Wales suggests that the contribution from Wales alone is in the region of £3 billion. At a time when small businesses need a stimulus, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we should be taking advantage of the relatively low pound to encourage visitors to come to the area? As a further stimulus, may I invite her, as Leader of the House, Members from all parts of the House and you, Mr. Speaker, to visit the jewel in the crown of the UK industry, the Isle of Anglesey, in the not-too-distant future?

Harriet Harman: I visited the beautiful Isle of Anglesey in the not-too-distant past, so I know what my hon. Friend is talking about. It might be worth having a topical debate on tourism as we approach the summer. I will definitely consider that suggestion.

Michael Moore: In recent days, European Commission officials have been briefed by Scottish fishing leaders about the impact of the reduction in effort days at sea on this year's fishing, particularly as it affects my constituents in Berwickshire. Given the seriousness of the situation, there is now an issue about the financial sustainability of the industry, quite apart from the issue of the sustainability of fish stocks. Will the Leader of the House make urgent provision for a debate on the Floor of the House about this year's fishing arrangements, so that we can bring our concerns to the attention of the Minister concerned?

Harriet Harman: I think that what the hon. Gentleman is talking about comes within the purview of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; am I right? There were Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions earlier this morning, so I think— [Interruption.] I am sorry; he had two issues to raise. I will raise the point with the Ministers concerned.

Graham Allen: Did the Leader of the House receive a copy of the report from Parliament First, an all-party group, many of the members of which are in the Chamber? The report suggests that there is a better way of running our business in this House. We could have a business committee, to which Members from all parties would be elected. The House could create commissions of inquiry—for example, to look into the causes of war—and there should be a petitions committee, so that people in this country have a channel through which they can bring legislation before the House. Will she meet a delegation from Parliament First to discuss those issues, and the next issue in which it is interested, which is the election of members of Select Committees by Members of Parliament?

Harriet Harman: I will be happy to meet my hon. Friend and those involved with Parliament First. He will know that the Procedure Committee is doing ongoing work on petitions. On people being able to bring legislation before the House, he will know that we have opened up the legislative programme process, so that people can see our intentions. That offers people the opportunity to add their proposals before we get to the Queen's Speech. We will be carrying out that process again this year. I look forward to meeting my hon. Friend and the other hon. Members involved with Parliament First.

William Cash: In the Leader of the House's reply to the shadow Leader of the House on the question of privilege, she indicated that the Attorney-General's view implied that there should be some action in the courts. Does the Leader of the House understand that the question of what constitutes privilege is a matter for the courts, but the question of whether a matter is privileged is for the Committee on Standards and Privileges? In those circumstances, will she make certain either that the Attorney-General's opinion is placed in the Library—the Attorney-General is adviser to the House of Commons and the House of Lords on these matters—or that the Attorney-General comes to the House and explains exactly what her reasoning is?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman makes a good suggestion that the Attorney-General's advice be placed in the Library. She is, as he says, adviser not just to the Government, but to the House. As the Chair of the Committee on Standards and Privileges has asked for that advice, it is advice to the House. That affords us the opportunity to place it in the Library, so that all Members can see it. I think that that is a good idea.

Katy Clark: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the reports of the discussions yesterday between the United States of America and Russia about their nuclear arsenals. She will also be aware that the review conference on the non-proliferation treaty is due to take place next year. Does she agree that we need to move the issue higher up the political agenda over the next year, and will she say when we might get a debate on nuclear disarmament in Government time?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend, who has a long history of campaigning on these issues, brings an important matter to the attention of the House. Often, it is possible to lose sight of the progress that has been made in working towards non-proliferation. I will definitely take up her suggestion and consider how we can bring the matter before the House.

Patrick Cormack: As the right hon. and learned Lady is the Leader of the whole House, will she recognise that there is support throughout the House for Members from the regions to meet once or twice a year as a Grand Committee to examine issues and to hold people to account, but that there is no such consensus on the Regional Select Committees? Will she not therefore move away from the current situation, in which we see the ludicrous spectacle of two or three Labour MPs purporting to be a Select Committee acting on behalf of the whole House, when they are no such thing?

Harriet Harman: There would be more Members from the regions, and not just two or three Labour MPs, on the Regional Select Committees if Members from Opposition parties decided to go along to those Committees and ask questions of regional development agencies and other agencies that are important in the regions. That is a matter for them. Opposition Members cannot complain that there are too few Members on a Committee if they themselves do not turn up to it. I am sorry, but that is not a justified complaint. As far as Grand Committees are concerned, discussions are under way in respect of the different regions, and where the Committees would hold their first meeting. No doubt that information will be forthcoming.

Julie Morgan: My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned the equality Bill, and I congratulate her on all the work that she has done in that field. Yesterday, young people from a number of voluntary groups came up from Wales to lobby Welsh MPs to extend the scope of the Bill to the under-18s, drawing to our attention groups that are particularly discriminated against, such as young fathers, young carers, and black and minority ethnic young people. What opportunity will there be to discuss those issues?

Harriet Harman: Perhaps I could have a meeting with my hon. Friend, and any other hon. Members who would want to attend, about protecting young people. I know that she is a great supporter of the programme to eliminate child poverty and improve child health. There are many other initiatives across government to improve the situation of children and young people. I thank her for her support for the Bill. She will see many of the measures that she has championed over the years in the Bill when it is published.

Paul Burstow: On 2 March, the Learning and Skills Council notified my council, the London Borough of Sutton, that it would receive sixth-form funding of £19,161,103 for the coming academic year. Just yesterday, the LSC issued a revised figure of £18,226,694—a 5 per cent. reduction in the allocation for sixth-form education in my borough. May we have a statement or a debate, when we get back, so that we can explore how the cut can be reversed, and how the Government square it with their commitment to three-year budgets, which avoid such shocks? At the very least, will the Leader of the House let her ministerial colleagues know about the problem?

Harriet Harman: I will draw the points made to the attention of my ministerial colleagues, but I think that they are scrutinising the issue in considerable detail, so I hope that they will already be aware of the matter. Despite there having been major investment, which has produced 600 projects that have gone ahead in more than 300 colleges, and which has made a massive difference, we make no bones about the fact that there has been mismanagement. That obviously needs to be looked at.

Denis MacShane: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that one of the outcomes of the G20 is a crackdown on tax havens. However, is she also aware that the Swiss are now saying that they might change their law to bring in a British trusts system? Using that system is one of the best ways of hiding money and its source from the Inland Revenue. May we have an early debate on the secrecy of the British trusts system? Furthermore, can we change the rules of the House so that all right hon. and hon. Members have to declare any beneficiary trust from which they get money, or any trust that they may have set up?

Harriet Harman: My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that, behind the global credit crisis, lies the problem of a lack of transparency, which meant that financial things were bought and sold without those who were buying and selling them knowing what it was all based on. Lack of transparency and secrecy have led to this global problem, which Treasury Ministers, working with colleagues internationally, are determined to sort out. There will be a further statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer at 5 o'clock.

Nicholas Winterton: I fully support the Leader of the House's statement that there should be cross-party discussions on Members' pay, allowances and expenses. Will that also include details that she gave in a ministerial statement on the parliamentary pension? The Government are recommending that there should be a 1.9 per cent. increase in Members' contributions to the pension fund. That will equate to an additional £60 a month out of Members' pay. Bearing in mind that, as of the first day of this month, we have been given a salary increase of 2.33 per cent., which equates to £68 a month, is this not a most unfortunate situation? We should bear it in mind that the deficit on the pension fund is not due to Members, although it is a little bit due to longevity. It is mainly due to the fact that the Treasury, as the employer, has had a contribution holiday for 14 years.

Harriet Harman: In January, the House agreed by resolution that we would keep a cap on the Exchequer contribution. Like other people in this country, Members are living longer, so the Government Actuary's Department expects an imbalance between the contributions being paid and the amount that needs to be paid out. We all agree that we must protect the Exchequer from having to take the strain of that and having to increase its contribution to our pension fund. Therefore we have either to reduce Members' benefits or increase Members' contributions.
	The Government Actuary's Department report has been published by way of written ministerial statement and is available to colleagues this week. We will have a debate in the House on the matter, and there can be a resolution and a statutory instrument. We are determined that—and it is important that—we all stick with the principle that we do not allow the Exchequer contribution to rise. There are a number of ways in which we can protect the Exchequer contribution from rising and obviously we will consult hon. Members on whether they think the best course of action is to increase the contributions, or, for example, to delay the retirement age at which the pension is available. We are concerned to listen to what hon. Members say on how we should address the issue, and I am happy to discuss their proposals before we bring our proposals to the House for debate. We have to be absolutely clear: at this time, it would be quite wrong to put more money from the Exchequer into our pension fund. I do not think that we should do that.

Lindsay Hoyle: As my right hon. and learned Friend is aware, manufacturing is on its knees at the moment, and it needs real support. Employees are either losing their jobs or are unable to claim working tax credits because they are not putting in enough hours. Will she consider holding a debate on my early-day motion 1182?
	 [That this House calls on the Government to introduce subsidies to employers moving workers to short-time hours or making temporary lay-offs as a result of the economic difficulties caused by the recession; believes that such support would enable employers to avoid immediate redundancies and retain essential staff and skills, preventing unnecessary job losses; further believes that if linked to training, it would also enable longer-term workforce investment; further believes that such a measure is a quick and effective way to target support to struggling employers and providing financial support to employees during these difficult times; notes that similar subsidy packages have already been introduced in Wales, which has been welcomed by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, as well as in Germany, France, Spain, the Netherlands and Italy; welcomes the support of business organisations and trades unions; and calls on the Government to work with business representatives and trades unions to introduce a targeted subsidy package to support the sectors of the economy, such as manufacturing, that are in greatest need.]
	Seventy-three Members have already signed it. It supports the short-time working subsidy that we need to bring in to protect and help manufacturing jobs in this country. It would make for a good debate, whether a topical debate or any other that she believes suitable.

Harriet Harman: No doubt my hon. Friend could bring the issue to the attention of Treasury Ministers. His support for manufacturing industry in his region and the country as a whole is very much appreciated.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: The Leader of the House is well aware that the nuclear industry is incredibly important in my area. However, we have hit a problem with the building of the nuclear academy within Bridgwater college—which, I am glad to say, is a superb further education college. The problem is that the funding from the Government is being cut. We desperately need engineers and safety technicians for the future and unless we start building the hub-and-spoke system now, the necessary people will not be in place for the start of the civil nuclear building programme. It will take three to four years to train those people, and EDF wants to get its first application in by next year to start the building programme. May we please have a debate on the nuclear issue and especially on the training of the future graduates and others who will run the stations?

Harriet Harman: The Government are committed to the future of the nuclear industry in this country as part of a balanced and self-sufficient energy policy. We have increased the budget—about £200 million, for example—on projects such as the nuclear development college at Workington. We are putting in a great deal of investment, and we will continue to do so.

David Chaytor: If the Government have already agreed that there will be a debate on Members' pensions, does it not follow that there ought to be a debate on Members' allowances? Given the importance of the meeting between the party leaders and of the early report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, would there not be an advantage in having a debate on allowances without there being a requirement to have a vote at that point? In that way, we could build consensus on the basic principles.

Harriet Harman: We have had many hours of debate in the House on the basic principles of Members' allowances, both at the beginning of this year and, on occasions, last summer. We have to consider the balance of issues that need to be discussed in the House—the global financial situation, climate change and education for people in this country. We have committed to a debate on pensions because we need a statutory instrument to cap the Exchequer contribution to our pensions, so we will have that debate. However, we had a free-ranging, in-principle debate about Members' allowances in January. No doubt we will return to the issue once the party leaders have met and once we have the report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life. I am sorry, but I cannot agree with my hon. Friend that we need a general talk about the issue now. I do not think that it should be a priority for debate in the House now.

Alistair Burt: Last month, 23 new trains were expected on the Thameslink line. In the event, only one appeared—and it had to be sent back. As the Department for Transport was responsible for the contract, may we have an urgent statement from that Department about why the train manufacturer Bombardier's long-standing problems, which have a national impact, have been allowed to go on for so long?

Harriet Harman: I will bring that point to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Transport.

North Sea Helicopter Crash

Jim Murphy: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the helicopter crash that occurred 14 miles off the coast of Crimond, Aberdeenshire, north-east of Peterhead just before 14.00 yesterday. A Eurocopter Super Puma, operated by Bond Helicopters on a charter for BP, crashed in the North sea approximately 14 miles off Rattray Head, which is 38 miles north-east of Aberdeen. The helicopter was returning from BP's Miller oil field platform, 35 miles north-east of Aberdeen. On board were a flight crew of two pilots and 14 passengers. All were wearing survival suits.
	The Aberdeen coastguard was informed of a ditched helicopter at just before 14.00, and two life rafts were spotted in the water. Two helicopters from the RAF bases at Lossiemouth and Boulmer were scrambled to the scene alongside a Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft from RAF Kinloss. RNLI lifeboats from Peterhead and Fraserburgh were launched to join the search. Eleven other vessels also responded to the mayday signal from the coastguard, and one vessel was on scene within minutes of the alert. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency has been co-ordinating the extensive search and rescue operation.
	Tragically, the bodies of eight people from the helicopter have been recovered and are now with the Grampian police to undergo identification procedures, and the remaining eight are currently unaccounted for. Search operations by dedicated rescue units were suspended at around 23:00 last night to rest crews and for refuelling, although other vessels in the vicinity continued to search the area. Dedicated units resumed their recovery efforts at first light this morning. Those who have died or are missing have not yet been named, while police work to contact their relatives. BP has set up an emergency contact line for concerned relatives, friends and colleagues.
	Members on both sides of the House will rightly wish to express our collective sympathy and our individual prayers for those who have lost friends and family in the crash. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, this was a tragic day in the North sea. We all stand today in solidarity and mourning. This tragedy reminds us that despite the North sea's remarkable improvements in safety, it can be one of the harshest environments on earth. Every day, brave men and women work there to bring us the oil and gas our country needs.
	I would like to praise the work of the MCA, the Royal Air Force, the RNLI and other vessels who responded so quickly to the distress call; and of the Grampian police, who are co-ordinating the investigation into the crash. They have all worked together to respond with well-prepared contingency plans in very difficult circumstances. I have also spoken to Scotland's First Minister, who is making a statement in the Scottish Parliament today.
	The air accidents investigation branch is conducting a full investigation into the circumstances of the event, and a team of 14 air accidents investigation branch staff have been deployed to Aberdeen, including experts in helicopter operations, engineering, flight recorder replay and data analysis. The work to identify the causes of the accident began this morning, but what appears clear is that there was a catastrophic impact as the helicopter crashed into the sea.
	Hon. Members will be aware that there was another accident on 18 February 2009 involving a Eurocopter EC225 LP Super Puma manufactured in 2008. It occurred when the helicopter was approaching an offshore platform to land, descending at night with fog and low cloud in the vicinity. The aircraft landed heavily on the surface of the sea. Thankfully, in that case there was no loss of life. The initial investigation by the air accidents investigation branch has revealed no evidence of pre-impact malfunction of any major mechanical components in that incident.
	Yesterday's crash involved a Eurocopter AS332L2 Super Puma manufactured in 2004. It occurred when the helicopter was in cruising flight, in daylight with benign weather conditions, when the crew broadcast a short mayday call without identifying the nature of the emergency. The helicopter was seen to descend rapidly to the surface of the sea. Consequently, given the evidence to date, there are no indications of any causal links relating the two events.
	I know that the House will understand that the air accidents investigation branch report on yesterday's tragedy will take some time to prepare. Once complete, the report will be presented to the Secretary of State for Transport. However, as the inquiry progresses, factual information will be released and any safety action recommended as appropriate. We will consider the findings of the investigation carefully and take the necessary action to protect safety levels in the North sea.

David Mundell: I apologise to the House for not being present for the start of the Secretary of State's statement, and thank him for an advance copy. I also thank him for coming to the House to make the statement, although sadly in relation to such a tragic loss of life. I, and Members on both sides of the House, echo his sentiments and thoughts for the families and friends of all those who have lost their lives, and for all those who continue to work on the North sea.
	The whole nation will share the Secretary of State's gratitude to the personnel of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the RNLI, the Royal Air Force and the commercial and marine organisations that have given their help to the search and rescue effort. The crew of the Caledonian Victory support ship performed a particularly heroic duty in being first on the scene. The failure to locate any survivors must have been very traumatic for all those involved.
	This incident reinforces to all of us just how dangerous and uncompromising a working environment the North sea is. When we make use of the oil or gas that it produces, or indeed the revenues that it generates, we must always be grateful to the dedicated people who work there. I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that the health and safety of those workers must always be our priority. May I therefore ask him what he expects the timetable to be for investigating the aircraft wreckage and establishing the cause of the crash? Will he give his personal undertaking to work with colleagues across the UK Government to do everything possible to expedite a preliminary report from the air accidents investigation branch and the Civil Aviation Authority into what caused the catastrophic failure that resulted in such a loss of life?
	Does the Secretary of State agree with me about the importance of not substituting speculation for a technical inquiry and of distinguishing the cause of individual incidents? Does he agree that in the light of three major incidents—two in Scotland and one in Canada—within a relatively short period, a wider review of practices in relation to the use of helicopters in oil and gas exploration may be necessary fully to restore the confidence of those who have to use them?
	Is the Secretary of State aware of an issue that has been raised in the media about the decision of BP to remove beacons from individual lifejackets following a previous incident? Will he ensure that that is fully investigated so that it can be fully demonstrated whether this decision played any part in the time scale in locating those on board after the crash?
	Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to discuss with colleagues in the Department for Transport the Conservative proposal to review the MCA staff's terms and conditions in relation to other emergency services? This sort of incident demonstrates the legitimacy of their claim to be part of our emergency services.
	Finally, will the Secretary of State confirm that he will work as closely as possible with the First Minister and the Scottish Government on all aspects of the aftermath of this incident that fall within the devolved responsibilities?

Jim Murphy: Those who are so tragically affected by these events will welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments of solidarity, support, sympathy and prayer. That is rightly reflected across the entire House. He asked a number of specific questions, to which I will briefly respond in turn. I am happy to talk to him on any occasion about the matters that he raised.
	The rescuers were on the scene within 12 minutes, and it is my understanding that when they arrived there were two life rafts there, both overturned, and the rescuers sought to see whether there was any sign of life on or near those life rafts. Tragically, there was not; they were both overturned with no sign of life.
	On the hon. Gentleman's point about the removal of personal beacons, without going into all the details—of course, this is for the inquiry to look into—I understand that as a consequence of the findings after the previous incident, it was decided to remove the individual wristwatch beacons because of the important way in which the different beacons on life rafts, aircraft and individuals co-ordinate with one another. These beacons do not work when submerged in water, so those wearing them could not have been more easily tracked. In this instance, the issue of beacons has not been as significant as it may have been in other incidents or tragedies, because there was a very early sighting of the incident from close nearby, and so there was no need for a wide-ranging search, as there was an immediate pinpoint search.
	On the hon. Gentleman's specific points, I agree about the need for facts rather than speculation, and it is important to reflect on the tragedy in Canada, which involved a different type of aircraft—a Sikorsky. It is important for us not to conflate all these incidents; it is for inquiries and the experts in the field to reflect on these matters. Yesterday's tragedy involved an earlier version of the Puma than the one involved in the incident seven weeks ago, so there is no causal link between those three incidents at this moment—as I said, the aircraft involved was a different one altogether.
	On the time line, I agree that it is important to make progress as quickly as possible on the inquiry into what happened, which is why 14 staff are on the scene today, carrying out that work. We will release information, if necessary, as the inquiry is undertaken so that we do not wait until the end of the inquiry to take any necessary urgent action. We will act urgently, if necessary and whenever necessary, as part of this inquiry. It is important that we maintain confidence in the North sea and that the brave men and women boarding aircraft this very day have confidence that the authorities, the Government, the industry and everyone involved is doing everything possible to learn immediate and early lessons from this terrible human tragedy.

Alistair Carmichael: May I, too, thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of his statement today, and may I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with his expressions of condolence and sympathy to the families of the deceased? This is not just a collective tragedy, but a tragedy for 16 individual families, and we must never allow ourselves to forget that.
	For almost 40 years, the offshore oil and gas industry has been at the heart of commercial and industrial life in Scotland, especially in the north-east of Scotland, around Aberdeenshire. Many communities have been transformed by its impact, but, sadly, many have also been touched by tragedy over the years. This is not the first such incident that we have known, and it is appropriate that we remember today previous incidents, such as Brent Spar, Cormorant Alpha and the Chinook helicopter crash, which is still remembered in Shetland in my constituency. We in this place often comment on the great rewards of the oil industry: yesterday is a tragic reminder of the risks that are also associated with it.
	We are fortunate, if I may say so, in having a vast body of experience in the air accidents investigation branch, which is widely recognised not just in this country, but throughout the world. I am told that Bond has grounded its Super Pumas today. It is, however, important that we have the earliest possible practical decision from the Civil Aviation Authority whether that grounding should be of a more general application. The Super Puma has a good safety record in the industry, but with two incidents having taken place in such close compass, it is important that an early move should be made to ensure that those working in the industry can have every possible confidence in its continued suitability. Can the Secretary of State assure me that there will be the fullest and most open communication possible between workers in the industry, through the companies that employ them and the unions that represent them, and the various agencies charged with the investigation of this tragedy?
	May I associate myself and my party colleagues with the appropriate expressions of thanks that the Secretary of State has made to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the RNLI, the RAF and the officers of Grampian police, who have executed an immensely valuable and professional service? The House might reflect, however, that the coastguards praised for their skill and professionalism today are the same coastguards who had a pay settlement imposed on them last year in order to avoid their lower grades falling below the level of the minimum wage. The contribution of coastguards and the other emergency services should not be forgotten on occasions such as these.
	There will be an ongoing investigation that will involve agencies reporting to the Governments here and in Edinburgh. Whatever differences may exist between this Government and the Office of the First Minister in Scotland, there is surely nothing to be gained by anything other than the fullest co-operation between them.

Jim Murphy: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman rightly and appropriately added his poignant words of sympathy and support to the families and his recognition of those most closely involved who, at this moment, continue to work in the North sea. It is tragic to reflect on the fact that what began as a search and rescue operation seems, with each passing moment, more like a recovery operation. Of course, it is for those on the scene to make that decision.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the speed with which an inquiry can be undertaken. It is important to reflect that once the voice and data recorders are brought to the surface, it is estimated that it will take about 24 hours—if they are in good condition—to translate and analyse all the information held there. That will be an important first indicator of what went so tragically wrong.
	On the points the hon. Gentleman made about open communications, it is right for the UK Government and the Scottish Government to co-operate very closely, which is why I spoke to the First Minister yesterday evening, and again today. I have spoken to the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change as well. Such co-operation is essential at this tragic time, and it is important to talk to others, which is why we keep in close contact with the trade unions and the chaplain to the North sea oil and gas industry, who is providing important spiritual leadership to all those affected. I offer to keep the hon. Gentleman, too, up to date with any details as the investigation is carried out.

Frank Doran: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and I add my condolences to the families and relatives of those who have lost their lives. I now know that eight of the dead come from the city of Aberdeen, part of which I am proud to represent. My grateful thanks are also due to the rescue services that attend these incidents, often at great risk to their members. We have a lot of experience of the risks and deaths that accompany the benefits of being the European energy capital—far too much experience.
	This is the second largest death toll in a helicopter tragedy in the North sea. Over the 41 years of the industry there have been 191 deaths of passengers and crew across the European oil and gas industry in the North sea, and of those 125 were in the UK sector. By world standards, taking into account the hostile regime of the North sea and the number of miles flown each year, that is not a bad record, but does my right hon. Friend agree that it is still far too many deaths? We will learn and apply the lessons when all of the facts are known, but for the time being, we should grieve with the families.

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend speaks with great emotion about the fact that a large number of those who have lost their lives are from his great city, and it may be helpful to let the House know, without naming any of the individuals, that the indications are that eight of those on board were from Aberdeenshire, four were from elsewhere in Scotland, three were from England and Wales and one was from outside the United Kingdom. He is correct to say that we have to maintain the highest possible safety standards in the North sea, today and every day in the future. This is another tragedy, and it is a tragedy too many. As we look ahead to the future of the oil and gas industry in the North sea, when the search for new fields will take us into areas of increasingly inhospitable terrain, it is important to reflect on the fact that the safety challenge will become even more acute as the industry continues to change. I know that my hon. Friend and his colleagues of all parties in Aberdeenshire will play an important role in trying to maintain that strong record of safety and in ensuring that the inquiry is full and reaches firm conclusions that mean that safety is of paramount importance in the industry.

Malcolm Bruce: Thousands of my constituents work in the offshore oil and gas industry and I am sure that many will be shocked and dismayed by the tragedy this morning. BP's North sea headquarters and Bond's operations are based in my constituency and I have spoken to both companies this morning. The House will understand that they are deeply shocked at what has happened.
	I have also spoken to Grampian police, who are co-ordinating the rescue and the recovery. It is important the people understand that hundreds, if not thousands, of people are waiting to come home from offshore or go back again, and will face that journey with considerable apprehension in the circumstances, as will their families.
	We know that 10 of the missing or killed were from KCA Deutag Drilling, one from PSN and two from Bond. It is important to extend our sympathy to the companies and their associates because I know that they will all be in deep shock.
	Given the position that people face, I hope that the Secretary of State understands that we need the earliest possible reassurance, and to know how, on a fine day, a helicopter only minutes from Aberdeen airport had such a catastrophic failure that there was an impact that no one appears to have survived. We understand the professionalism of the AAIB. I am sure that it appreciates that we must get to the bottom of the incident as soon as possible and reassure people. Everybody depends on the workhorse of the North sea, but the House must understand that people will not feel comfortable flying in helicopters today or for the next few days until they know.

Jim Murphy: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, based on his many years of interest in and championing of the North sea oil and gas industry. He rightly spoke to people at the scene this morning. I spoke to Dave King, chief inspector of the air accidents investigation branch, earlier today. We discussed in some detail the need for quick action at the scene, but also the need to ensure that it is the right action. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman agrees.
	The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that hundreds of men and women are waiting to travel to oil platforms or to come home from them. I think that 1.6 million people in the oil and gas industry travel on aircraft over the North sea every year. There are families today who have lost someone very near and dear to them—I cannot comprehend their loss. I grew up with the North sea oil and gas industry in my family because my father worked on the rigs for many years, but I have no sense of the scale of the loss that those people are going through. However, I have some understanding of the scale of the uncertainty that others now feel. It is important that we do all we can to maintain the confidence of all those in the wider North sea oil and gas community.

Des Browne: I thank my right hon. Friend for the statement and apologise for not having been in my place to hear the beginning. I have had the advantage of reading a paper copy in the past few minutes.
	I thank my right hon. Friend for the opportunity to mark in the House the significance of yesterday's events. It is an awful tragedy. Mere words are never adequate in such circumstances to express what people feel, but they are all that we have, and I know that my constituents in Kilmarnock and Loudoun would want to be associated with the words of condolence that have been expressed in the House and beyond.
	Hardly anybody in Scotland does not know, or know of, someone who has worked in the North sea. There will not be a family in Scotland who is not touched by the terrible events that unfolded yesterday. Consequently, there will be significant anxiety throughout Scotland—I know that from the calls that I have fielded in the west of Scotland from some of my constituents overnight and this morning—for those, to whom we have already referred, who face the journeys and take the risks daily.
	I know from the recent past the risks of regular helicopter flight, and its security in difficult circumstances. Will my right hon. Friend expand on the words in his statement about the industry's safety record, with reference to the statistics that have already been mentioned on the comparative safety of such travel in the North sea? What steps are being taken immediately to reassure people who are anxious about friends or relatives who will have to travel that that risky business—it will continue to be risky—is as safe as possible while the exhaustive investigations take place?

Jim Murphy: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. For many years, he has championed the cause and the case of the North sea oil and gas industry. He is right about the anxiety that is felt in many households throughout Scotland. It is also important to reflect again that some of those on board the aircraft are from other parts of the United Kingdom. I know that my right hon. Friend shares the sense that the tragedy is felt in the four nations of the United Kingdom, but, of course, most acutely in Aberdeenshire.
	Remarkable improvements in safety have taken place in the North sea oil and gas industry in recent decades. That is the view of the Government and the industry, but also—perhaps most important—of the trade unions involved in the industry, which have taken the opportunity today to acknowledge the genuine improvements in recent years. However, whatever the lessons that emerge from the inquiry, we will have to act—that is why it is important that the inquiry take place as quickly as it is. We are working with business, the industry, trade unions and others to continue to reassure people and families that everything that can be done is being done to maintain unprecedented levels of general safety in the North sea. Despite that, we have witnessed a dreadful tragedy in the past 24 hours.

Robert Smith: I thank the Secretary of State for giving the House the opportunity to express our sympathy and condolences to the families and friends of the victims of the tragedy, and to offer reassurance to the wider community, which, as he understands, will be greatly concerned about families and friends who travel offshore.
	I want to reinforce the importance of producing any interim findings as speedily as possible and ensuring that the AAIB has all the resources it needs, especially those for investigating under the water to recover vital evidence of exactly what happened, so that early reassurance can be given and lessons can be learned quickly.

Jim Murphy: I know that the hon. Gentleman rightly takes a keen and close interest in the industry and in safety. I remember being in the north-east of Scotland with him as we sought to travel to one of the oil platforms some years ago. I know how closely he follows such matters.
	Resources will not be a problem. We will put at the disposal of the investigators whatever resources they require to ensure that they get to the truth as quickly as possible.
	On interim recommendations, as information comes to light as part of the inquiry, we will respond and act if necessary. It is important to make that clear. We need to understand fully what caused this drastic human tragedy and respond by ensuring that the highest possible safety levels are restored in the North sea.

Katy Clark: I thank the Secretary of State for the statement and associate myself with the condolences expressed. Our hearts go out to all those who are directly affected.
	My right hon. Friend knows that some calls have been made today to ground the specific model involved in the incident until it is clear exactly what went wrong. He has confirmed that a different model was involved in the incident six weeks ago. I understand that the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, which represents many offshore workers, is among those making the calls. What consideration has been given to those requests, given the severity of yesterday's incident?

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I spoke to trade unions about the matter earlier today. Of course, the model is different from the aircraft involved in the incident on 18 February and entirely different from that in the tragedy in Canada. However, if the voice and data recorders are recovered and the information gathered from them means that we have to take quicker action, that will be a matter for the relevant authorities. However, based on their record and how they carry out inquiries, I am certain that if information comes to light from the recovery of the voice or data recorders that shows that more prompt action is necessary, it will be taken. However, at the moment, that is not a conclusion that we wish to leap to. We want our response to be based on the facts, and early conclusions to be based on recovering all the data that we can.

Menzies Campbell: May I add my sympathy and condolences to those who have been affected by this most tragic accident? We are fortunate in this country with the quality of investigation into such incidents. The air accidents investigation branch has an outstanding reputation. I appreciate that the matter will be one for the Crown Office in due course, but may I take it that the Secretary of State will not close his mind to the possibility that a fatal accident inquiry may be required to deal with wider issues that go beyond the immediate remit of the AAIB?

Jim Murphy: The right hon. and learned Gentleman raises an important point. It is too soon to close our minds to any course of action, but that matter is of course for the Crown Office, rather than for me at the Dispatch Box today. He rightly raises the wider point about the remarkable expertise that exists in our air accidents investigation branch and in David King and the team that he has assembled. I have genuine confidence that they will work tirelessly over the next few hours—and if necessary, through the night—to get to a conclusion about just what happened. What is remarkable at this early stage is the horrific, catastrophic way in which the incident happened, with no early warning—there was a brief mayday from onboard the aircraft—and with no early indication of exactly what caused it. Because of the way the incident occurred, it is essential that we come to some conclusions as quickly as possible.

Jim Devine: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on coming to the House with his statement and on the way he has conducted himself at the Dispatch Box with openness and honesty. He is clearly as affected by what has happened as we all are—and, no doubt, as the whole of Scotland and the rest of the UK are. Reference has been made to the role of the trade unions. There is expertise in the trade union movement on health and safety issues, so I wonder whether he has given any consideration to finding a seat at the table of the investigation for a trade union representative.

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend rightly has good and close relations with trade unions in Scotland and across the UK. I spoke to Jake Molloy of the Offshore Industry Liaison Committee earlier today. It is important that we continue to keep trade unions involved. However, it is not for me to announce today how we do that. We have the right procedures in place for an investigation, but it is essential that we involve trade unions and workers directly in sharing the early conclusions and in learning the long-term lessons from the dreadful human tragedy that has taken place.

Angus MacNeil: I thank the Secretary of State for ensuring that we in the Scottish National party also had an advance copy of the statement. It is greatly appreciated. It is with great sadness that those in all parts of the House have today spoken of the loss of the Bond Super Puma helicopter. When the First Minister was in Aberdeen with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice last night, he described what happened as one of the worst helicopter accidents in the North sea in terms of fatalities. Our prayers, condolences and thoughts go out to those affected and to their families. Today a book of condolence has been opened at the Kirk of St. Nicholas in Aberdeen.
	Yesterday, when most of us were watching the G20 summit in London, the news of the helicopter crash came through, which to many of us was a source of great angst. As has been said in all parts of the House, many of us will know people who work in the North sea. In my weekly travels, I seldom travel to or from the Hebrides without somebody who is going to or from the North sea travelling with me. People come from all over the country and from Europe, as the sad news from Grampian police confirms.
	We are reminded of the great efforts of the emergency and rescue services in responding quickly and, as always, professionally, but this time sadly to no avail. The helicopter went down near the supply boat Normand Aurora. Almost immediately, other vessels were steaming to the location, as well as two Royal National Lifeboats Institution boats, from Fraserburgh and Peterhead, two helicopters and a Nimrod.
	Super Pumas are the workhorses of personnel movement in the North sea and they have a good safety record, but now there are many concerns about them. A thorough inquiry is of course needed and interim recommendations would be welcomed, especially by those who travel. I wonder whether the Secretary of State could give us any idea of when early recommendations might appear, for the peace of mind of all our constituents who travel in the North sea.

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about how quickly we can come to any interim recommendations. I cannot announce that today because, as we have discussed, an element of the rescue operation is still ongoing, as is a large component of the recovery operation. Some vehicles will be being used to get close to the remains of the helicopter and to continue the search for the bodies of those who are still missing. As I mentioned earlier, if the voice and data recorders are in good enough condition, we anticipate that it will take perhaps one day to decipher, as far as we can, what happened inside the cockpit and the aircraft more generally before it came to a catastrophic end. As I have said, there was a brief mayday from onboard. Once all that work is concluded, we will be in a better position to understand the time line.
	Finally, it is important to record the fact that the chaplain and those who lead the community in prayer have opened a book of condolence in the oil chapel in Union street in Aberdeen for local people to sign. For those of us who have faith, those who have lost their lives and their families were in our prayers last evening, and they will be in our prayers today as well.

Peter Bone: I thank the Secretary of State for the way in which he has made today's very sad statement and for his full explanation. When the banner came across the screen on Sky News last night saying that the helicopter had gone down, I reflected that, being a parent of an RAF helicopter pilot, I would know that my son was safe if a similar banner went up, because the families are notified before the story goes on the news. That banner must have caused thousands of families across the nation great concern. I wonder whether anything can be done to ensure that in future the next of kin are told before the news becomes fully available in the media.

Jim Murphy: That is an important point. No one in the media should take what I am about to say as a criticism, but the hon. Gentleman's point reflects the nature of modern communications, with text messaging and access to the internet. The wonder that is modern communication also causes the difficulty that, as it were, uncertainties are communicated to others. I was contacted by friends last evening about their loved ones who are working in the North sea. However, it is important to say again that we are making no announcement about the names of those who are dead or missing until their next of kin have been notified.

Julian Lewis: I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the Secretary of State for sharing with us so fully such information as he has. Can he tell us whether his preliminary talks with the recovery services, as well as focusing on their hope to regain the data buoys, and the voice recorder in particular, have indicated whether there is any prospect of recovering any substantial part of the crashed helicopter? That would be of crucial significance in establishing what went wrong.

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is right. What happened last evening and this morning was that parts of the debris of the craft were recovered and, more importantly, the bodies of those who have been confirmed dead were recovered. Work is ongoing at this very moment to discover the precise locations of the different parts of the aircraft and the eight who are still missing. The technology involved in the North sea industry is so remarkable that we can have a degree of confidence that we will quickly be able to track the precise location of the remaining parts of the helicopter, as well as great and continuing hope and determination to track and find the remains of the eight who are still missing.

Easter Adjournment

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —(Mr. Blizzard.)

David Wright: I should like to pass on the condolences of the people of Telford to the people who have been involved in the terrible disaster in the North sea. Our thoughts are very much with them today.
	I should also like to say something about a personal friend of mine who, sadly, was killed in Afghanistan in December—Royal Marine Damian Davies. My thoughts are still with his family. He was a friend of mine, and I have not yet had a chance to raise this matter in a general debate. I want to pay tribute to all those in our armed services who are serving us so proudly around the world.
	The House needs to hear about three issues before the Easter Adjournment, the first of which is the need to establish a post bank across the United Kingdom. We have an opportunity to set up a new banking model for the people of this country, based on the post office network. I want us to build up a trusted financial institution that is not based on shareholder value or on a target-driven bonus culture for management. We need to take the opportunity of the current financial crisis radically to redesign the banking system. I am sure that the Chancellor will want to say more about that in his statement this afternoon. At present, the top four commercial banks hold 76 per cent. of all current accounts in the UK, and surveys suggest that since the commercial banks have been bailed out and supported by the Government, consumer confidence in the private banking sector has reached an all-time low. It is clear that we need to rebuild confidence in the banking sector—that is partly what the G20 summit is about—but I think that we can do more by setting up a post bank.
	Post offices would act as banks, providing a current account, a cheque book, a cash card and possibly a credit card, under the auspices of a new agency called post bank. In other European countries, such as France, Italy and Germany, it has proved to be profitable, equitable and popular. The scheme would strengthen the post office network by building up its business so that local economies—the drivers of prosperity—were enabled to grow through locally based services. Post offices would provide banking services, good quality local advice and financial help.
	I believe that there is support for this proposal across the House. It is an idea whose time has come. There are 3 million people in this country without bank accounts, and a post bank model would help to make banking services available throughout the UK. It would be a trustworthy brand on which people could rely. The Government would initially need to finance the set-up of the post bank as a social enterprise until it became self-funding; any profits would be reinvested into the bank's own operations, and moneys could be provided for community-based projects.
	In the Telford area, we could get the Fairshare credit union to work with the post bank to offer low-cost loans through the post office network. We could partner such financial organisations with the post bank, and the credit union would immediately have a new set of outlets through which it could operate. Importantly, the post bank model would ensure that post office business was protected and that the sustainability of our remaining post offices was underpinned. The Government have put an enormous amount of money into sustaining the network, and they now need to put new business into it.
	This proposal would enable us to protect our remaining post offices in Telford and across the country. It is a practical step that is backed by the trade unions, the Federation of Small Businesses, public research bodies and the National Pensioners Convention. As of yesterday, early-day motion 1082 carried 139 signatures, including my own—I am proud to have signed it. The post bank is a great idea, and I think that the Government need to move quickly on it. I would certainly be in the queue to open an account myself, if we could get the project off the ground. I do not know whether that means that I have to declare an interest—perhaps it does. I would certainly be in that queue.
	The second issue that I want the House to think about before we go into the Easter recess is the need to create and support vibrant local shopping centres. There are a number of borough towns in my constituency that need regeneration and support in these difficult times, one of which is Madeley, and I am glad to say—although some people will be shocked by this—that Tesco is doing a great job there. It is building a new store in the high street and redesigning the high street, along with other private sector partners. We have encouraged Tesco to put in a local store and to provide new shops. Ironically, we are going back to the pre-new town high street pattern in Madeley. We built a new centre—a concrete structure—that proved to be unpopular and, after 30-odd years, we are demolishing it and putting back the old high street. I very much welcome that, and I welcome the role that Tesco is playing in that scheme.
	Other local centres across Telford that need help include Dawley. It has suffered significantly from its close proximity to Telford shopping centre. We need to improve the street scene there, and we need to bring in more shops and residential units. In my view, the council should be looking at relocating some of its back-room staff to Dawley as part of the Paddock Mound development process. At the moment, the Dawley regeneration plans envisage the creation of a large amount of residential space in the Paddock Mound area, with some of the cash involved being invested to cross-subsidise the high street. We all know that the residential market is slow at the moment, and my worry is that that plan will delay the regeneration of Dawley. However, the council could step in and consider locating its back-room staff in that proposed residential area, which would bring cross-subsidy investment into the high street.
	Another town in my community that needs investment is Oakengates. I am extremely concerned about the lack of commitment to Oakengates from the local authority. We need to save the old Walker Tech building—a stunning building in the town—as well as tackling the poor environment and the dangerous parking problems in Oxford street and Market street. So far, the council has offered peanuts to the people of Oakengates, and they deserve better.
	A general theme that needs to be pursued across Telford is the introduction of street drinking bans. One thing that really deters people from going into local centres is the sight of groups of people—of all ages, it must be said—drinking alcohol at all times of the day. It puts people off and is particularly intimidating for older people who want to use the local facilities. Street drinking bans send out a clear message to the public that they should not consume alcohol in local centres as it creates an antisocial environment. Again, we need to move quickly. The council is going to consult on bringing in a street drinking ban in Dawley, after the major exercise that I carried out in which I received more than 1,000 responses from local residents. It is important that the council moves quickly, and that the ban in Dawley is seen as a pilot for other areas in Telford, such as Oakengates and Madeley, as well as local centres such as Brookside, Sutton Hill and Woodside, which could also benefit from having designated areas in their local centres where street drinking was banned.
	Alongside the regeneration of those local centres, we also need to transform Telford town centre. I am extremely concerned about recent developments relating to the town centre. It was created to serve the new town and it has expanded over the years in a rather haphazard way, with new shopping arcades and other facilities being added on in a fairly piecemeal fashion. What is needed now is an overarching strategy to create a new, vibrant centre offering retail, entertainment and new housing. The strategy needs to involve all the partners in the town centre and to be led by the council, which is the strategic player.
	Unfortunately, it seems that the council and the owners of the shopping centre, Hark Apollo, are not communicating. This has been made worse by the decision of the council effectively to rewrite the strategy for the centre by selling its civic offices to Asda, thereby drawing an anchor retailer out of the main shopping centre. I welcome the fact that Asda is committed to Telford, as it brings jobs to the area and retains jobs within it. However, the move by the council to lure it from the shopping centre is a serious concern. Hark Apollo has made it clear that this is a major threat to its shopping centre and that there has been a major breakdown of communication between it and the council.
	I want to see a comprehensive redevelopment of the town centre with design continuity right across the scheme. This is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to get this right and the council should be co-ordinating the process, not creating a climate of crisis and recrimination. This project is vital for the regeneration of the borough and I will do anything I can to bring the parties together to talk. We should not be in this potentially disastrous position in any case. My message to the council is, "Get your act together. I will work with you and help you." My message to Hark Apollo is also fairly blunt: "You need to review your parking charges, as this is one of the reasons Asda is considering moving out of the town centre". I want the partners to come together; I believe in a strong partnership between the public and private sector. I believe that if we all work together, we can get this right and transform the centre of Telford.
	The final issue I want to address is the review of health services in Shropshire and Telford and Wrekin. I have to say that I am sick and tired of continual reviews of our local health services. We seem to have the same discussions year in, year out—and it must be costing a fortune. In the seven years I have been an MP— [Interruption.] Eight years, but in all those years, we seem to have been having the same conversation about health services in our county. It is not necessarily to do with the Darzi review or the latest trend in Government policy; we just seem to have a constant debate going on among health services managers about the structure of services.
	The clinical leaders forum in our area is leading the current review process and it has come up with proposals relating to acute hospital services. In simple terms, local health bosses seem to want to do two things. First, they want to keep children's assessment units at both the Princess Royal hospital in Telford and Wrekin and the Royal Shrewsbury hospital, but they want to put in-patient children's services on one site. That, they say, is the safest option. They also want to develop a children's care service at home.
	Secondly, the bosses want to retain A and E service on both sites, but with one dealing with the most seriously injured and ill—those involved in multiple trauma road accidents, for example. Level 1 A and E would be provided as it is now at regional centres; level 2 A and E would be on one of the sites in either Telford or Shrewsbury; and level 3 A and E would be on the other site. At present, no decision has been made about which site should have which services. The clinical leaders forum has produced a long list of four clinical options for sustainable acute services. More work is being done now as part of the consultation process. The concept of a new hospital has now emerged, located between Telford and Shrewsbury, so that it could provide all the acute services to the county.
	I have to say that this process has now become an over-complicated shambles. The public have no faith in the process and the recent interventions by the National Clinical Advisory Team have made the situation worse. Health bosses should go right back, in my view, to the drawing board—or perhaps they should take the drawing board away and leave us all alone. We should be designing health services for the people of Shropshire and Telford and Wrekin—not, I add, for mid-Wales, with apologies to colleagues from mid-Wales—and it is about time health managers got out from behind their desks in Shrewsbury and took a long look at the health needs of my constituents in Telford. A&E services in our county are often stretched to capacity at the moment between the two hospitals and many people still have to wait a long time to be seen.
	The history of hospital services in Shropshire includes a long struggle to get the status of Telford new town recognised as it grew from the 1960s onwards. Telford is the largest population centre in the county and it is a growing town. By 2026, at least 26,500 new homes will have been built in the borough of Telford and Wrekin, and the current planning review suggests that figure could expand to more than 30,000. Telford could easily grow to become a town of more than 200,000 people in the next two decades, and we need hospital services to reflect that.
	We have high levels of deprivation—worse than anywhere else in the county—and other social indicators show very clearly that hospital services need to be focused on Telford. Anyone can see the logic of structuring services around Telford. Services should not be based on how the county looked 50 years ago or even 10 years ago; they should be based on how it looks now and how it is going to look. On that note, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I wish you a happy Easter?

Robert Smith: I thank the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) for expressing sympathy for the victims of the helicopter tragedy and for his support for the post bank—a timely idea taking forward many of our concerns about the Post Office, and an issue to which I shall return.
	We finally debated the economy in Government time on Tuesday. In that debate, I raised issues connected with the oil and gas industry. Later today, we are having a statement about the G20, which will obviously be about the global impact of the world economy and any global action that can be taken to restore confidence in the economic situation. During the statement, we will have a chance to discover what has come from that G20 meeting. Although the crisis is global and there are definitely global aspects to the economic crisis we face, there is no doubt that there are also local and national aspects to it. The Government had a role in getting us into the crisis and they will have a role in how we come out of it.
	On the banking system, we need to learn lessons and understand why the Canadian banks have not gone through the same crisis as UK banks. We must ensure that Government action restores the UK banking system. There is real frustration among the majority of constituents of the majority of Members that so much taxpayers' money is being poured in at the top, without them necessarily seeing any outcome at the bottom. If we speak to local businesses trying to secure the cash flow they need from the banks to keep going, we find that they are very frustrated. They are frustrated that the announcement of so many Government schemes is not necessarily followed by delivery and they are frustrated in terms of communication in that the banks do not seem to be aware of what schemes are available to assist in supporting business. We need to see a real measure of impact from all this intervention so that banks finally get liquidity flowing in the economy again. If small businesses are unable to borrow, they cannot keep the business turning over to get them through the slump and out the other side.
	One victim of the response that has had to be made to the crisis is people with savings, particularly pensioners who have been hit hard. To get cash flow going, interest rates have been slashed to near zero. That provides more liquidity for people with mortgages and other borrowings and reduces the burden on business, which is to be welcomed, but it also has a negative impact on savings and particularly on pensioners who rely on them.
	One action the Government could take—and take quickly—to restore a sense of justice on this issue would be to look at the assumed income pensioners and others on benefits could make from their savings. To assume that they can get 10 per cent. on their savings when the Bank has cut the rate to 0.5 per cent. is simply not natural justice and it flies in the face of reality. In the long run, while we want people to spend where they can in the economy, we also need to keep a savings culture in the long term. If we are to penalise people for putting money aside for their old age by assuming that absurd returns can be achieved, we are going to damage that savings culture in the future.
	Another aspect of restoring confidence would be to embrace the post bank proposal quickly and efficiently and to roll it out. Many pensioners and people with small savings want real confidence that there is a traditional banking model available where people lend money to the banks, the money accumulates and real savings follow. People do not want fancy financial models that put at risk both savers and borrowers. The post bank could be a great way of restoring confidence in basic banking, and could provide new outlets for the Post Office. As the hon. Member for Telford pointed out, considerable effort has been put into saving, or at least reducing the damage to, the post office network, and the Government have invested a great deal. Now is the time to bring in new business to give vibrancy to, and take advantage of, the network that has been saved, to avoid further closures and to ensure a viable future for the service. Working with credit unions strikes me as a important way of building on something that already exists in communities.
	The Government could take another step to restore savers' confidence, and confidence in the financial system. They could respond to the continuing concerns of the ombudsman about the handling of the Equitable Life sufferers—the victims of the Equitable Life debacle. When there is maladministration, or a failure of administration, if we do not demonstrate that something will be done about it, people will not feel confident about the regulation of the financial system in the future. A stronger response from the Government, and a recognition of the ombudsman's frustration over the handling of Equitable Life, would restore an element of confidence.
	Responding to the economic crisis involves a role for the Treasury and the approaching Budget, but other Departments should be highly aware of the dangers of excessive regulation, and of regulation being introduced too quickly at a time when people are finding it most difficult to adapt. When I was a member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry in the last Parliament, the point was made in evidence from the Federation of Small Businesses that while each regulation often stands up and makes sense, a wall of regulations all arriving at once places a great burden on business in requiring it to adapt and evolve. That applies during the good times, but when businesses are struggling to make ends meet and to cope with a real financial crisis, having to implement any extra bureaucracy or regulation that could be avoided imposes an unnecessary burden at a time when the other means of restarting the economy may not be working particularly well.
	Earlier today, during questions to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, we heard about the European Union's proposals for sheep-tagging and the burden that that will place on many hill farmers. The Secretary of State spoke of a move to ease the impact. I think we need to know exactly how he expects that impact to be eased. When there are a large number of sheep on the hills, identifying them individually will involve extra bureaucracy, and having to work out, when a tag is lost from a sheep, which number was on it in order to replace it will mean an awful lot of extra work for a farming community that is also struggling with the financial crisis.
	Another issue raised at question time was that of our high animal welfare standards. I want to reinforce what the Secretary of State said about sound and efficient labelling. Perhaps the Secretary of State could also reinforce what he said by ensuring that such a system can be delivered, so that consumers who have put pressure on us, as parliamentarians, to operate the highest animal welfare standards can support that pressure by buying products that meet them. There is no point in putting pressure on us to achieve high animal welfare standards, and then buying products from other countries that do not meet those standards and are therefore able to undercut products that do.
	Another regulation is causing concern about the economy in my constituency. I must declare my interest in the oil and gas industry, as a Shell shareholder and a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the British offshore oil and gas industry. The group recently made a visit to a conference in Stavanger which was supported by oil and gas industry companies. I am concerned about the emissions trading phase III regulations, and the European Union's proposal for 100 per cent. of electricity generation emissions trading permits to be auctioned.
	Much of the power on the offshore oil and gas platforms is generated on those platforms. The aim of the emissions trading regulations is to encourage less use of carbon by promoting alternative sources of electricity, but the offshore platforms are not connected to the grid, and cannot simply switch to a renewable source. Buying the permits at auction will impose an extra cost on the industry, which means that, at a time when the industry is already facing difficulties, older platforms in particular may be tipped into being no longer profitable, and start to be decommissioned earlier than was originally intended.
	If those platforms are decommissioned early, nearby finds will no longer be exploitable. If we decommission early in the United Kingdom we will produce less oil and gas, but that will not affect the level of consumption; it will merely mean that we import more. The carbon leakage regulations provide a strong case for the Department of Energy and Climate Change to make to the European Union. It should say that we need to take advantage of the rules of the EU system, and that because of the carbon leakage, the North sea needs to be protected from the full impact of the 100 per cent. auction.
	Another bureaucratic nightmare for many constituents is the minefield of the IR35 regulations. Many people work in the north-east of Scotland work as contractors, and already feel the real heat of the economic crisis. It is unlikely that they would suffer a pay cut upfront if they were employed, but because they are contractors, it is easy to reduce their fee levels by changing the terms of their contracts. The additional bureaucracy generated by all the work involved in trying to comply with IR35 could be eased if the Treasury thought again about its impact.
	I wish to reinforce my support for the case for an early inquiry into the circumstances of the Iraq war, our involvement in it, and the decisions that led to it. Such an inquiry must be wide ranging to enable all the lessons to be learnt, and it should be arranged on an urgent basis so that we learn the lessons as soon as possible in order to apply them to any future conflicts. It must consider the role of Parliament, the role of scrutiny of Parliament, and the way in which Parliament questions Government. It is clear that Parliament had an opportunity to prevent that war, but did not judge the information provided by Government in a way that would have allowed it to question the decision that was put before it, and to avoid the tragedy of becoming so heavily involved in Iraq in such a bad way.
	I pay tribute to the troops who have served in Iraq. They have performed the duty that Parliament asked them to perform. However, it is important for those lessons to be learnt. One of the tragedies of our having allowed the United States to distract us into becoming involved in Iraq was the fact that we took our eye off the ball of Afghanistan. That has made our present task in Afghanistan far more difficult, because the job was not seen through at the time. Having supported the intervention in Afghanistan, I hope that in our negotiations with the United States, the US will recognise the burden that we have already borne there and the importance of its troop surge in helping our hard-working armed forces—who are taking such a high risk—to deliver a better life for the people of Afghanistan, and to protect our security here at home by trying to see through a job that was not seen through properly at the time because of the distraction of Iraq.
	Finally, as the Easter recess approaches, let me take this opportunity to thank all the staff of the House who make it possible for us to serve in this place, and to wish everyone a happy Easter.

Peter Soulsby: I want to draw attention to a proposal whose implementation would have a significant effect on my constituency: the Co-operative Group's proposal to build an eco-town known as Pennbury. Although the town would be built just outside the boundaries of my own constituency, in the constituencies of Harborough and Rutland and Melton, the impact on my constituency and the people in it would be considerable, and I am anxious to record the strength of feeling among those local people before the recess.
	At the beginning of my remarks, I should declare some interests. I have been a member of the Midlands Co-operative Society, with a £20 share, for some decades and a member of the Co-operative party for some 40 years, and my constituency Labour party, of which I am a member, has recently received a £200 donation from the Co-operative party. Members will be able to tell from those declarations that I am very sympathetic to the principles of the Co-operative movement.
	I am also very sympathetic indeed to the concept of environmentally sustainable housing. During my 17 years as leader of the city council in Leicester, it was awarded the accolade of being Britain's first "environment city", and it was one of 12 communities worldwide that was invited to the Rio summit to give examples of communities that were seeking to grow in a sustainable way. I also have a long commitment to the provision of adequate affordable housing. I was a member of the then controlling Labour group in the city council in Leicester at a time when we were very proud to be building some 1,000 council houses every year.
	Therefore, nobody can doubt the fundamental attitudes with which I approached the Co-operative society's proposals to build this eco-town. I am also not unsympathetic to its desire to develop a part of its extensive landholdings to the south of Leicester for housing. When I was leader of the city council, we had a number of discussions with it about what were then its proposals for an area called Stretton Magna, not far from the Pennbury development of today, and when the Co-op came forward with this new proposal, I hoped I would be able to support it.
	In the almost two years since the publication of the Government prospectus for eco-towns, I have had a number of meetings with representatives of the Co-op. I have also met city and county councillors and officers, and I have looked carefully at the Co-op's publications and at the analysis of the proposals undertaken by the city and county councils in Leicester and Leicestershire. I have looked particularly carefully at the work undertaken by Halcrow, which has conducted a strategic assessment of the proposals that was published last December.
	My initial sympathy for the proposals and the proposers has changed to alarm about the potential impact on my constituency and the city of Leicester more generally, and from that alarm to a general conclusion that were Pennbury to be developed, its impact on Leicester—and Leicester, South as a part of Leicester—would be devastating. During this period, I have been particularly disappointed that, rather than engaging with the concerns that I and others have expressed, the Co-op has chosen to dismiss our questions and to rubbish the many criticisms that Halcrow made of what it described as the Co-op's "questionable assumptions".
	The Co-op's latest glossy publication is full of inspirational pictures and fine words. That is typical of its responses to the criticisms, and I will draw on it to illustrate some of my points. In it, the Co-op dismisses its opponents as
	"a small minority of people who opposed the eco-town proposal from the outset",
	and it accuses them, and by implication me, of wishing to "stifle debate". It may well be the case that some have opposed the principle, but that is certainly not true of me, nor of many others who have tried to get proper answers to reasonable questions.
	Let me refer to one particularly distinguished critic: John Dean, the former president of the Royal Town Planning Institute and the distinguished city planning officer in Leicester in the 1970s and '80s, who served for a total of, I think, some 21 years in that capacity. He did much to shape the conservation and appreciation of the city's built heritage and to prepare the ground for its current regeneration. Mr. Dean said of the proposals for Pennbury:
	"The location of the proposal derives from the landownership of the scheme promoters and not from any rational planning process which has considered and debated alternatives."
	He has produced a detailed critique of the proposals. Much as the Co-op might like to dismiss such distinguished criticism, John Dean and many others, such as me, who have been increasingly concerned about the proposals are certainly not guilty of nimbyism.
	I have four broad and interlinked concerns: first, the development on this site will draw regeneration investment from the city of Leicester; secondly, the transport generated by it will have a totally unacceptable impact on the A6 corridor through my constituency and the A563 to the M1 motorway, and the suburban rat-runs through the constituency will be dreadful; thirdly, the tram, which has so seduced the city council, is a mirage, and many other aspects of the transportation proposals are unrealistic or unworkable; and, fourthly, the employment proposals and projections put forward by the Co-op are vague and unrealistic.
	I wish to say a little more about transportation in particular. The Co-op claims that
	"the effect of the eco-town on the transport network would be minimal".
	If it has carried out studies to come to that conclusion, they are certainly not ones that have convinced the experts, Halcrow, which expressed its conviction that the transport infrastructure cannot be delivered. However, we do not need an expert to tell us that the Co-op's assertion that the impact of 15,000 new homes "would be minimal" is plainly ludicrous.
	What the Co-op has tried to do in developing its proposals is pretend that it will be possible to persuade residents of this eco-town to reduce car ownership to one car for every two households. That may be highly desirable, but it does not reflect the real world of the 21st century. Equally ludicrous is its planning assumption that it will be possible to provide appropriate employment in the eco-town to match the employment needs of 60 per cent. of the residents. As Halcrow points out, that is more that twice the so-called containment level of the neighbouring mature areas of Oadby and Wigston. Even on the Co-op's figures—which, as I have said, are hopelessly unrealistic—the location of the park-and-ride terminus at Leicester race course is in completely the wrong place and unworkable. The prospect of squeezing more cars and a dedicated public transport corridor—whether bendy buses or a tram—down the already heavily congested A6 London road, which is one of the most attractive routes into the city, with little more than some bus lay-bys and a more sophisticated traffic light system is totally incredible to ponder, and the strain on the ring road to the south of the city towards the M1 has scarcely been considered by the Co-op in any of its propaganda. Indeed, much of its propaganda is totally unreadable, with plans that are largely meaningless to the layperson for whom they are intended.
	With regard to the regeneration of the city, the Co-op has made two completely contradictory assertions. On the one hand, it claims that the eco-town will not draw regeneration investment from the urban core of the city—which, of course, it clearly will—and on the other hand it asserts that it is better to develop on its green fields because, in its own words,
	"brownfield sites are expensive to develop".
	Frankly, it cannot have it both ways. Particularly astonishingly, the Co-op claims that
	"brownfield development has also failed to deliver affordable housing".
	I could take Co-op representatives throughout my constituency and across the city of Leicester and show them many examples over many decades of brownfield sites that have been successfully developed for either Housing Association or local authority properties.
	In conclusion, the fundamental problem with the site is that, because of its proximity to Leicester—and to Oadby and Wigston, in the constituency of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), whom I was pleased to see in the Chamber today— Pennbury can never be a free-standing development with its own identity. Because of the infrastructure problems, it is totally inappropriate as a sustainable urban extension.
	Concern about the devastating effects of this proposal cross the political divide. They have of course been expressed by Members in this Chamber—by, for example, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough and the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan)—and, indeed, by members of all parties in the county council. Although members of the city council were, for reasons that are well understood locally, keen to give initial support to the proposal, they, too, gave it subject to conditions on housing, transport and regeneration, all of which it is now clear the Co-op will not be able to meet.
	As the consultation period draws to an end, I want to take this opportunity before the Easter recess to urge the Government to kill off this misguided and extremely damaging proposal at this stage, rather than allowing it to proceed and to die, as I hope it eventually will, when it is subject to scrutiny and consideration in the regional and local planning processes.
	I wish my many friends in the Co-operative movement well. I admire their determination to make good use of their assets and I have no doubt of their genuine environmental aspirations. However, on this occasion they have the wrong proposal on the wrong site, and I must defend the interests of my constituents and the city of Leicester from this potentially devastating proposal.

Robert Wilson: I am extremely grateful for this opportunity to raise a number of very important local issues. I had hoped to deal with one of them at business questions but unfortunately I was not called, so I will deal with it briefly now. It is about a rapidly improving school, Highdown, in my constituency, which was informed on Monday by the Learning and Skills Council about a cut to its sixth-form funding. This is happening to schools and colleges right across the country. The LSC is also refusing to fund all the places that Highdown needs to satisfy local student demand—on top of the fact that its new sixth-form centre building project has recently been put on hold. The new cut is causing a £200,000 budget deficit that will have very serious implications for the school. The head teacher told me that he could be forced to make teaching staff cuts, which in turn could halt the immense progress that the school has been making in recent years.
	There will be other schools in my constituency suffering similar cuts, about which there was no consultation or, indeed, warning. So much for the Government's promise of stability for schools through three-year funding mechanisms. The funding cut has been made at the last possible moment in the financial year and is obviously a desperate attempt to claw back money. What we do not know is what caused it. It is a particularly sneaky and underhand way of doing things, and the Secretary of State should be forced to come to this House as soon as possible to explain why he has done it.
	I turn to phone masts, the behaviour of Vodafone and the incompetence of my local council's planning department. Vodafone had submitted an application for a 10 m high mast at the junction of Westdene crescent and Woodcote way. It was turned down because it was completely inappropriate to the local area—in fact, it would be an eyesore. Another application was submitted, which the local council also turned down. However, Reading borough council's planning department failed to notify Vodafone within 56 days, as it is required to do. The council says that it wrote to Vodafone on the 55th day, but the letter arrived on the 57th day. The result, I am told, is that Vodafone, on a technicality, has the right to go ahead. The council has failed its residents in this matter and should rightly be taken to task for its abject incompetence. It has let local residents down in a quite shameful way. I hope that the matter will be pursued via the local government ombudsman, but also that the council will do everything it possibly can to make amends.
	However, Vodafone is also acting in a manner that I would not expect of a company that values the notion of corporate social responsibility. Whether it got the decision on the 56th or 57th day, it knew the planning application had been turned down before it went ahead; it should have accepted this, or at least acted in good faith to negotiate another site. I have to say to Vodafone that I will not deal with a company that treats my constituents in this way. It has not acted in good faith with the local people. Whatever the problems with Reading borough council, it should not be used to ride roughshod over local concerns. I have tried to engage Vodafone in a dialogue, and I urge the company again today to engage positively with me and with local people to try to get a solution that is acceptable to all parties. I am willing to help, because I believe that mobile communications are an extremely important part of modern life in this country and an important industry to the UK as a whole. It is essential that companies protect their reputations. I advise Vodafone to act without delay.
	I turn now to the extremely serious issue of irresponsible lending. Although I appreciate that many families have been affected by the recession, I would like to concentrate my thoughts on one of my constituents, Mr. Trevor Howard. Owing to a catalogue of events outside his personal control and to the Financial Services Authority's negligence, he is no ordinary victim of the credit crunch. In the times of profligate lending before the credit crunch hit, loans sometimes felt as easy to obtain as a bar of chocolate from a shop. People could more or less walk into a bank and choose the mortgage they wanted, of pretty much any shape or size.
	During this period, Mr Howard's former wife, Julie, fraudulently obtained hundreds of thousands of pounds via a plethora of loans, re-mortgages, store cards and credit cards. The level of deception she employed is shocking, but the incompetence of the lenders involved is equally so. We are talking about sums such as a £150,000 re-mortgage brokered by Best Advice mortgages—we can see the irony in that name—and funded by Kensington; another re-mortgage totalling £37,000 with the now collapsed Bradford & Bingley; loans in excess of £100,000 with Firstplus; and a number of other loans and credit cards. Thames Valley police have cautioned his wife, because the Crown Prosecution Service will not prosecute in a criminal court.
	Mr. Howard has won a civil case against his ex-wife, but on this occasion attention needs to be drawn away from her fraud and toward the negligence of the lenders involved. None of the fraud would have been possible without the lax procedures employed by the lenders. HSBC, for example, agreed to a £13,000 loan that Mrs. Howard had applied for under her and her husband's name. The bank manager signed his approval to the agreement the day before—the day before—the form was signed by the applicants. Not only this: Mr. Howard's signature was forged, as has been verified by a handwriting expert.
	On another occasion, Best Advice mortgages agreed to a £150,000 re-mortgage in both Mr. and Mrs. Howard's name. It is claimed that the application was face to face; however, the truth is very different. Mr. Howard was at work, as a builder, on the day the application was made and has a large number of witnesses who have verified the fact. Mrs. Howard later admitted that the application was submitted by post. Subsequent inquiries to the lender showed that the form was incomplete, and Mr Howard's date of birth was incorrect and his signature was once again forged. Witness signatures were forged, to the extent that three out of the four signatures on the mortgage deed were forgeries.
	An Experian report revealed that Mr Howard's date of birth was incorrect against a number of accounts, all of whose existence he was not aware of until he split from his now ex-wife. She ran the couple's finances and employed an unimaginable level of deception to hide all the debt racked up in Mr Howard's name—all without his knowledge or consent.
	Mr. Howard has written to the Council of Mortgage Lenders, to the UK's fraud prevention service and to the Prime Minister. Since taking up his case, I have written to the financial services ombudsman, the Justice Secretary and the Independent Police Complaints Commission regarding the failure to investigate the lenders. All attempts to get action to be taken against the mortgage lenders have fallen on deaf ears and they have simply been wriggling and passing the buck to each other. I am particularly dismayed at the attitude of the Financial Services Authority—the supposed regulator of financial services.
	This case involves irresponsible lending in the extreme; money was fraudulently obtained by Mr. Howard's ex-wife simply because the lenders did not carry out reasonable, significant or responsible checks. Like many builders, Mr. Howard was made redundant at the end of last year. Obviously, that was partly due to the economic climate, but the time that he had to take off work to fight his civil case, which he won, also played a significant part in his becoming unemployed. Mr. Howard's home is being repossessed, so due to his wife's fraudulent activities and the incompetence of the lenders he has been left unemployed and he will probably soon be without a home.
	Serious questions need to be asked about the regulatory system and the way in which lending takes place in the UK. Applications made by post are obviously open to identity fraud, so why are lenders not making sufficient checks on those applications? For example, why did the lenders not carry out proper and thorough signature checks in this case? Mr. Howard's date of birth was entered incorrectly by his ex-wife on application forms so that his credit history would not come up in checks by lenders. That hid all the previous lending and made it appear that he had a very good credit history. Why did the lenders not properly verify the identity of the applicants? The date of birth details on the forms and identify documents were not properly checked or corroborated at any stage? Credit cards were delivered through the post to an address other than the family home. Mr. Howard's ex-wife had changed the delivery address without his knowledge or consent. How was that allowed to happen? Why do lenders not follow their European counterparts by requiring credit cards to be collected from them as a way of verifying the borrower's identity?
	When investigating, the police struggled to obtain documents from these lenders. Why is there no way to force lenders to provide the required information to the police? The sad reality is that Mr. Howard will probably never get justice for what has happened to him. The FSA has refused to investigate the lenders and the lenders themselves have failed to investigate internally. Perhaps the Minister could give Mr. Howard some hope and undertake to push for an inquiry into how this situation was allowed to happen. I am not sure that the answer is more regulation; it is about better regulation and the enforcement of existing regulation. The Government are culpable for failing to ensure that the FSA was on top of the financial regulation of this industry. Unfortunately, Mr. Howard is yet another example and victim of this Government's economic failure.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I mean no prejudice against those hon. Members who have spoken and who did so within their time limit, but it is apparent that it would perhaps be more to the advantage of hon. Members if I withdrew the time limit on speeches. That will perhaps give a slightly more relaxed opportunity to those hon. Members who have been patient enough to wait for the debate. I call Mr. Allen.

Graham Allen: As Parliament and MPs are being kicked around by Government and the media at the moment, it is probably worth reminding ourselves of a time in the not-too-distant past when Parliament did get off its knees, did speak for people and did seek to hold the Government to account. The two largest rebellions ever within a governing party occurred six years ago but, despite them, Parliament decided to support President Bush's war in Iraq. The last of our troops are coming home now, so it is a good time to ask the following question: what is the profit from our victory?
	Some 179 of the troops' comrades have died, as have 4,259 members of the US military and an estimated 99,500 Iraqi civilians; an extraordinary and irreplaceable diversion of focus and resources away from the real threat, al-Qaeda, has taken place—imagine what we could have done in Afghanistan to the nest of al-Qaeda had we deployed all those resources where terrorism was clearly a threat. A new home for terrorism has been created. I take second place to nobody in condemning the tyranny of Saddam Hussein—the only thing that can be said for him is that, as a result of his butchery and tyranny, his own people were so much in fear that they were not susceptible to the splinter groups of al-Qaeda and to terrorism. Even in the depths of fantasy peddled by some of the people around President Bush, there was never a proven or sustainable link to al-Qaeda. The 100,000 or so people killed in Iraq had families, and the dysfunction that has been created is the perfect breeding ground for generations of terrorists, who can take flight around the globe and make all of our lives more difficult.
	We also lost the moral high ground as a civilisation. Whether it was because of what happened in Abu Ghraib or anywhere else, our right to speak, in any sense, as superior to any other culture disintegrated very rapidly—the right was forfeited. We also smashed the precious Arab-west coalition that had been developed in the previous Iraqi war, and the United Nations—perhaps our best hope for the future—was irrevocably weakened. It can no longer summon up armies or nations to rid people of tyrannies, wherever those may be.
	That is the legacy and we all have to live with it. It must be said that not a single weapon of mass destruction—the pretext of going into Iraq—was ever found there. That is history, but it is useful to learn some lessons from history. I, like a majority of the people in the Chamber today who were also here at that time, opposed the war and organised, in this place, against it. After the decision was made, I kept my counsel and ensured that our young troops, many of whom are from my constituency—I have met them in Basra and elsewhere—were not undermined.
	As we approach the sixth anniversary, I feel that some of the story can be told. Much of it reflects the grossly unbalanced relationship that exists in this place between Parliament and the Government, and there are a number of lessons that I would like the House and all Members to learn from that period. Before I touch on that, it is worth recalling that the first vote on the issue in this House, which took place on Wednesday 26 February 2003, was on the motion that the case for war was "unproven", and 122 Labour MPs voted to oppose going to war. Had the Conservative MPs voted for the amendment, war would have been defeated by 109 votes. I am not making a partisan case. The Conservative Members who voted for the amendment did so with great courage and resilience, and those who did not voted in the way that they did because they felt, openly and honestly, that that was the best way to go.
	The second such vote took place on 18 March 2003, on the amendment that the case for war had "not yet been established", and the majority of the non-payroll vote on the Labour side—139 Labour Members—voted to oppose going to war. Sometimes my friends in the Liberal Democrats inadvertently make it appear that only they opposed the war at the time. A significant number of Liberal Members voted with us on that amendment, but it was not as large as 139—the number of Labour MPs that voted to oppose going to war. Some 219 Members, from all parties, voted against going to war and another 29 deliberately abstained. Had the Opposition voted for the amendment, it would have been carried by 109 votes and Bush would have gone to war on his own.

Robert Smith: There is a question as to whether Mr. Bush would have gone to war on his own or whether by supporting him we conferred legitimacy on his actions. One of the most frightening conversations I have had was with an academic in the US, during a Select Committee visit, who said, "I had a lot of qualms about the war, but when I saw Tony Blair was backing it, I decided it was all right for us to go to war."

Graham Allen: Tempting as the hon. Gentleman's offer is, I shall not go over the old ground and reopen wounds within or across parties: I am trying to tease out some of the lessons for the future. I remember that he was in the Lobbies with us on those key occasions.
	Had the Opposition not voted against, but abstained, we would have needed just 20 more colleagues to have blocked the war—so near, but so far away. Despite all the pressure, the hysteria, the whipping and the meetings with Cabinet Ministers and even the Prime Minister, the threats that the Prime Minister would resign and the accusations that people were siding with Saddam Hussein or were being unpatriotic, it is remarkable that those who opposed going to war not only maintained their opposition, but strengthened their position by the time of the second vote. That is a tribute to all those in all parties, of many different views, who felt so strongly that then was not the time to go to war.
	I want to take the House on a brief stroll down parliamentary memory lane to recall the first rebel Parliament since the Long Parliament of 1640. The Long Parliament managed to fight the English civil war and execute the King. Its successor was not so dramatic, but it forced the Executive to convene the real Parliament to debate the slide into war against Iraq. In doing so, it opened up issues that are still pertinent to the House in general, and the possibility of a serious debate on the war in Iraq that would not pick over the bones of who was right or wrong, but would ensure that we learn the lessons and decide where the balance of authority should lie between Parliament and the Executive—something that we still need to resolve. When Parliament can check and scrutinise the Executive, we will have truly learned those lessons. The question is not when the Government will allow Parliament to scrutinise the Government. It is surely a complete contradiction in terms that the very body that will be scrutinised is the body that allows that scrutiny to take place. It defies human nature to want such exposure. There has to be a separation so that Parliament can do its job properly and question any Government's decision at any time to go to war, and monitor the subsequent conduct of that war.
	Through the summer recess of 2002, pressure was building up. The then Prime Minister was scuttling over to Camp David regularly, and it looked very much as though the United States would attack Iraq, and that Britain would be involved by virtue of the "special relationship" between Tony Blair and President Bush. They gave a press conference on 3 September 2002. Tony Blair said that if the situation developed in Iraq then the
	"fullest possible debate will take place, not just in the country but obviously in Parliament and elsewhere".
	The term "elsewhere" was unfortunately characteristic: Parliament had no higher status in the prime ministerial mind than the media, the pub, the opinion polls or the focus groups. As events would prove, Parliament was not genuinely and openly involved in the process. Instead, Members had to fight to stake a claim to represent legitimately the opinions that they were hearing in their constituencies. That right was not gifted to us by Parliament, nor was it ours as of right. It had to be fought for, as indeed have almost all extensions of our rights.
	Parliament had no rights either to recall itself or to debate war powers, and the Government gave no sign that they intended to recall Parliament before 15 October even though it was clear that they were likely to take this country to war. Many hon. Members at the time thought that that would be far too late and the die would be cast. On 3 and 4 September, I wrote to the Prime Minister asking him to consider recalling Parliament, and I know that dozens of other colleagues did the same—we agreed that this would be a good thing to do—but Tony Blair has never revealed how many MPs requested a recall.
	We believed that a recall of Parliament would strengthen British policy and diplomacy; would strengthen the Prime Minister's negotiating capability with the US President; and would help to explain the issues to the country, which was deeply divided and anxious about the possibility of war. Above all, recalling the forum of the nation would allow the ventilation of the views that had been expressed to us in July, August and September. That should always be our primary role, but it cannot be our role if we cannot meet to express those views.
	Apart from writing to the Prime Minister, there is nothing else that an MP can do to get Parliament recalled. The Standing Order on the recall of Parliament—Standing Order No. 13—says that once the House is adjourned, a recall can be achieved only by representations
	"to the Speaker by Her Majesty's Ministers that the public interest requires that the House should meet".
	The Prime Minister has monopoly power over the recall of Parliament: the very person Parliament is meant to scrutinise is the only person who can authorise that scrutiny.
	Since then, I have placed on the Order Paper every day a modest change to the right of this House to recall itself—to enable Mr. Speaker, without a request from Ministers, to think carefully about whether, on rare occasions, the House should be recalled. Regardless of people's views about whether we should have gone to war at that time and about the timetable set by the President, all parliamentarians would surely have wanted the Speaker to make the decision about recall.
	In spite of growing pressure from MPs, the Prime Minister was not willing to recall Parliament. Several of us therefore began to contemplate the idea of a rebel, unofficial Parliament—an alternative assembly of MPs. If Parliament was to be vetoed, perhaps MPs could take the initiative and convene themselves, meeting as an assembly of MPs outside of Executive control. Imagine that. Although it would clearly be second best to a real Parliament, the assembly could debate Iraq under strict parliamentary rules and put constituents' views on the record. Having spoken to a number of colleagues in all parties, I wrote to every Member of the House and asked three questions: first, would they support Parliament's being recalled to discuss the Iraq issue; secondly, if Parliament was not officially recalled, would they consider attending a gathering elsewhere of MPs operating under strict parliamentary rules to discuss the Iraq issue; and, thirdly, would they support a change in the Standing Orders to enable the Speaker to recall Parliament without the qualification that it should be at the request of Ministers if the Speaker were satisfied that the public interest did so require? The response was overwhelming. No fewer than 85 per cent. of Back Benchers agreed the need for an official recall, 65 per cent. agreed to come to an unofficial recall and 86 per cent. agreed that the Standing Orders should be changed, although, by agreement with my party's Whips, I did not release those figures to the media. It was clear that the demand was there for an alternative Parliament.
	On 5 September, I invited the former Speaker, Lord Weatherill, to resume his role for one day in the alternative Parliament. I also asked the then Serjeant at Arms if it was possible to hire the Chamber of this House. On 7 September, Lord Weatherill accepted the invitation to chair the alternative Parliament, which gave an immense boost to its standing. I looked for a team of Deputy Speakers and retired Clerks to support him.
	We also began to think about procedures. An alternative Parliament did not need to be bound by obsolete and inefficient traditions. We planned to try out innovations, including a microphone for every Member, working sensible hours and a strict limit of 10 minutes on all speeches, with no privileges for Front Benchers or Privy Counsellors. Our Speaker would let the House sit until MPs had spoken. For once, a late-night sitting would be justifiable. We wanted to allow MPs who could not be on hand at the alternative Parliament to hand in their speech for the record, as is done in the US Congress.
	We planned a live webcast of the alternative Parliament on the internet so that any elector could e-mail their views as they watched the debate. We even thought of a new logo—a raised portcullis, representing letting people into their Parliament rather than shutting them out. On Monday 9 September, a Back-Bench steering group of one MP from each party was created to oversee those arrangements.
	The following day we had a classic Catch-22 response from the Serjeant at Arms: he could not allow the Chamber to be used until the House agreed, but the House would not reconvene until 15 October. We looked for an alternative venue in Westminster and settled on Church House—a chamber used when Parliament was bombed in the second world war. To many MPs, that circular 600-seat chamber was actually better designed than the Commons Chamber. I was told that it would cost £6,000 for a day and fortunately my wallet was spared by offers of financial support from the BBC, the  Daily Mirror, the Rowntree trust and several individuals. We settled on the date of Thursday 19 September for the first Parliament to recall itself.
	Invitations, as many colleagues will recall, were sent to every MP and it became clear on 10 September that there would be overwhelming attendance—we had gained a critical mass of Members of Parliament who were willing to attend to put their very different points of view at that gathering. We were also gathering massive coverage in the media, and the clincher was a call from the BBC to ask whether it could cover the debate from gavel to gavel, from morning until it finished. I, along with my colleagues who were involved at that point, readily agreed to that request.
	On Wednesday 11 September—the anniversary of 9/11 —No. 10 capitulated. Robin Cook called me to concede that the official Parliament would be recalled, and so there would be no need for an alternative Parliament. Characteristically, No. 10 briefed the media before it briefed the steering group of MPs, but we were none the less delighted to have made the Executive recall Parliament, even though they were opposed to doing so.
	The alternative Parliament secured for Parliament the right to debate the Government's conduct of policy towards Iraq. That would not have happened for a further month had we not taken those steps. History will judge whether Parliament made the best use of that opportunity and whether it did enough to probe the military, political, legal and moral case for the Iraq war, or to expose the half-truths and outright falsehoods that accompanied it, as well as the lack of preparation for the aftermath—the absolutely criminal lack of preparation for victory, which meant that military victory was obtained but the peace was lost and frittered away.
	Perhaps the subject of how the votes were organised and how the opinions fell is one for another day. However, many colleagues felt that that was the first e-mail rebellion in the House of Commons. The virtual organisation that was set up to support colleagues from all parties worked very well. The names of the colleagues who were involved and who stood out on that occasion are evident for all to see in the Division lists, which are still available.
	Six years later, we still have unfinished business from the alternative Parliament, from those votes and from the decisions that were taken at that point. The recall of Parliament is still in the gift of the Executive. I still hope that all Front Benchers will seek to persuade their parties to commit to changing that. In spite of promises, Parliament still has no rights to approve war-making and the conduct of wars. The Prime Minister can still send our forces to war in the name of the Crown, as though he were Henry V at Agincourt. As we discovered in the run-up to the war, Parliament still receives no independent legal advice on the legality of war and still depends on the good will of the Law Officers even to see a brief outline of their opinion, let alone to debate it. This House needs its own legal capacity so that Members can refer to a Law Officer of their own to be sure of their legal standing when they make decisions that could come before the International Criminal Court and, in the most extreme cases, could result in charges when laws have been passed illegally because of the votes of Members. We need that capacity and we do not have it. Parliament still has no means of examining the quality and reliability of intelligence information if it is used to justify the resort to war.
	Although those issues remain unresolved, hon. Members should look back at those votes and at the genuine opinions that were expressed in all parts of the House, and should take heart from the fact that this Parliament can get off its knees and express a view on behalf of the people out there. Members of Parliament do not have to be whipping boys of the media for the sins of one or two of our colleagues. We can have our rights, we can exercise our responsibilities and we can hold Governments to account. Even though—amazingly—it is now six years since those exciting and in many ways tragic days of 2003, I hope that Members of all parties, including those who will or do form Governments, will learn some of those lessons and implement some of the changes to make this House, once again, worthy of the name of the Parliament of the British people.

David Amess: I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on his speech, and I certainly agree with many of the points that he made. I shall say more about that in a moment, and I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak for a little longer than was originally allotted, but I shall not speak for too long as I do not want to be penalised in future.
	This is likely to be the last Easter Adjournment debate before a general election, when the British people will have an opportunity to give their verdict on the Government's performance since the 2005 election, and on Labour's performance as a whole since 1997. I feel that that verdict will be pretty damning in every respect.
	Whatever Government explanations are given, it is extraordinary to find the economy in its present state. The Prime Minister used to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so it is very difficult for him to distance himself from his first, disastrous Budget, which he delivered in 1997. Pension funds were raided to the tune of £5 billion, and he made many mistakes throughout the 10 years that he was Chancellor, especially in respect of regulation.
	Following on from what the hon. Member for Nottingham, North said, I shall regret voting for the Iraq war until the day that I die. In my experience of the House, many hon. Members claim to be experts on all sorts of things. I have never pretended to be an expert, although the Conservative Benches contain many colleagues with military expertise.
	I listened to what the then Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, said at the Dispatch Box about how weapons of mass destruction could reach this country within 45 minutes. He made other claims too, but my party leader at the time, together with the then leader of the Liberal party, had been to No. 10 Downing street for a briefing. I believed that they had more expertise than I had, and that we could not let our troops down. For that reason, I thought that the right thing to do was to support the Government.
	I bitterly regret that now. I will never be so naive again. In economic terms, we would of course be in a better position now if we did not have the war debt, but the hon. Member for Nottingham, North told us how many people had died, and the number is just appalling. As for Afghanistan, any hon. Members who reckon that they have the necessary expertise should tell us how we can defeat terrorism when the people responsible for it are willing to take their own lives. I should be very interested to hear from them. I repeat that when the British public are given the opportunity to judge this Government, their verdict will be very damning.
	However, I want to discuss a number of matters before we adjourn for the Easter recess. I see that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North is still in his place. He and I went to Shanghai on our visit to China last year, and I have just had the privilege of leading a delegation to Mumbai and Chennai. The visits to China and India were very educational, as they allowed us to learn about the performance of those countries' economies. The British Government need to watch their development very carefully, and I hope that we will be at the forefront in taking the opportunities that present themselves. We must also make much more use of the wonderful work of the British Council.
	I happen to be the chairman of FRAME, the fund for the replacement of animals in medical experiments, a parliamentary group that tries to stop experimentation on animals. We adopt the sensible approach of trying to find alternative sources. The National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research does wonderful work in reducing unnecessary animal experimentation. It provides research funding for reducing cruelty in animal testing in areas such as veterinary immunisation testing and reproductive toxicology, and it supports data sharing in industry to ensure that animal testing is kept to the statutory minimum.
	The organisation has had great success in reducing dramatically the fatal use of testing on rodents, for instance. Some might say that its budget of £4.5 million is large, but that money has to go an awfully long way. Most of it goes on research grants, and it would be wonderful if the organisation were to get more money under the next spending review.
	When I was a member of the Health Committee, I suggested that we had an inquiry into obesity. All sorts of people got interested in the subject as a result, but I said to my colleagues at the time that I did not think we would make much progress if we did not concentrate on the salt, fat and sugar contents of the food that various producers were putting on the market. I accepted that spending more time on physical activities was a wonderful idea, but I believed that we needed to focus on what was achievable in the overall goal of reducing obesity.
	Sadly, 10 years later, unhealthy food advertising to children is still widespread, even though new Ofcom regulations for TV and radio were introduced a year ago. There has not been as much progress as there should have been in introducing the traffic light system, as the Health Committee recommended, because—as ever—Tesco has gone its own way.
	Tesco almost seems to be running the country. Many years ago, when I was Member of Parliament for Basildon, we started off with one superstore in the middle of town, but we had three by the end of my time there. Then the company wanted to have a post office in its supermarkets, and we lost shopping parades as a result. Nowadays, as all hon. Members know, Tesco is acquiring bits of land everywhere for its outlets, and it even runs them in garages. Tesco is putting people out of business morning, noon and night. It wanted to do its own thing, as ever, with the traffic light system of labelling. Quite simply, the system has not worked. I believe that it would be prudent to consider introducing a robust regulatory code of practice to address childhood obesity. The gesture politics that I so often see in relation to obesity is achieving absolutely nothing.
	Cooking oil is a common waste product that is damaging to the environment and difficult to dispose of. We have an excellent opportunity to use it to produce carbon-neutral electricity. That would make a wonderful contribution to the Government's carbon emission reduction targets, yet the lack of classification of cooking oil as a fuel or waste product is a major disincentive to companies looking to invest in the technology. Swift action to rectify that situation would make a great contribution to reducing carbon emissions.
	This time last week, I was chairing the annual general meeting of the all-party group on the Holy See. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor was present, as were the media because they thought he would announce his successor as cardinal, which he did not. The Papal Nuncio was present and so, too, was our wonderful ambassador to the Holy See, Francis Campbell. Some long-serving Members will remember my exchange about the Holy See with Tony Blair at Prime Minister's questions, after it had been brought to my attention and that of other Members that we were to lose our delegation at the Vatican. Mr. Blair looked very surprised at that, even though he was running the country and, as we learned, was very close to the Catholic Church. After Members were alerted to the situation, a number of us got together to form the all-party group.
	Francis Campbell is doing a wonderful job as ambassador and I am delighted to tell the House that Peter Ricketts has informed me that as a result of sensible and constructive lobbying by colleagues, our embassy will be reinforced with a new deputy ambassador and more staff. The staff have done wonderful work operating on a tiny budget.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham, North that this place has changed out of all recognition. Colleagues do not know what we are talking about when we tell them how much power we had. We worked long hours and we could really make a difference. Now we have lost all our power to quangos, but the issue I have just described is an example of how we can make a difference without rowing and arguing with colleagues. I am delighted with what has been achieved.
	Anti-Semitism is unacceptable wherever it happens. The Metropolitan police report that there were four times as many anti-Jewish incidents in recent weeks as there were Islamophobic incidents. The Community Security Trust, which monitors anti-Jewish racism, reports that there were as many attacks on Jews in the first weeks of 2009 as in the first six months of 2008. That is staggering, although we know why about 270 cases of anti-Semitism were reported in the first few weeks of 2009—it was to do with the Israelis and Hamas in Gaza and southern Israel.
	Incidents recorded by the CST include violent assaults in the street, hate e-mails and graffiti threatening jihad against British Jews. One disturbing aspect is the targeting of Jewish children. The  Jewish Chronicle reported that a 12-year-old schoolgirl on her way home from school was terrorised by a mob of youths chanting "Kill all Jews" and "Death to Jews." I became so concerned that I tabled a series of parliamentary questions, and I am pleased to hear that the Government have taken the matter seriously and will act on it.
	I welcome the fact that the first international conference on combating anti-Semitism was held in London. It was attended by more than 100 parliamentarians from 40 countries. The conference called for the establishment of an international taskforce of internet specialists to monitor anti-Semitism online and propose international responses. I very much welcome that.
	Over the years, I have found that many of the issues raised in Parliament are seasonal. Here we are on 2 April, so I am raising the issue of fireworks. Despite the passage of the Fireworks Regulations 2004, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals still receives hundreds of complaints every year, particularly on bonfire night and new year's eve. Domestic animals are severely stressed and given to madness by loud fireworks. A Labour Member who is no longer in the House—

Shona McIsaac: Bill Tynan.

David Amess: Yes. Bill Tynan introduced a Bill on fireworks.
	Despite prohibition of the supply of excessively loud category 3 fireworks, it is clear that fireworks are still readily available that create noise levels in excess of 100 dB at 15 m, well beyond the loudest noises in normal domestic settings. We need to look at what can be done to promote desensitisation programmes for domestic pets and to ensure that the current law on night-time firework use is enforced thoroughly. In addition, we need to look at ways to reduce statutory maximum noise levels further, perhaps to 75 dB, as recommended by the RSPCA.

Shona McIsaac: I am a former executive officer of an all-party parliamentary group that campaigned against fireworks, so I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman is raising the issue today. Is not the situation particularly serious for guide dogs? I am often told by vets who say that fireworks are not a nuisance, "You can simply sedate an animal for the duration of the firework season." One cannot do that to a guide dog.

David Amess: I agree with the hon. Lady. I have heard her speak on these matters before, and her support is welcome.

Robert Smith: One can have a spectacular firework display that gives great visual enjoyment without loud noise levels. The noise is not essential to the quality of the firework; it is an extra that is added on, and it could be reduced without damaging the visual quality.

David Amess: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are blessed to be by the River Thames, where we can see beautiful firework displays reflecting off the river without its being noisy. The new year celebrations were a wonderful opportunity to see such displays. Last November, all the bangs, which seemed to be fired in the direction of my house—I do not know whether I was being targeted by local residents—were slightly over the top, so I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Chris Bryant: Did you take it personally?

David Amess: No, I certainly did not.
	All hon. Members, whether or not they use their allowance for a second home, must be absolutely fed up with all the junk mail that is put through the letterboxes. I know that these are tough times, but whether the junk mail is from restaurants, suppliers or others, it is completely out of control. Some of that junk mail can cause nuisance, distress and inconvenience to many people in all sorts of ways. It leads to a high level of waste and identity fraud. Levels of direct mail mistakenly sent to people who have moved are still far too high. I am advised that even under the best practice guidelines of the Direct Marketing Association, data management software still leads to an average of 25 per cent. of deceased persons continuing to be sent direct marketing. That can cause great distress to family members. More rights are needed to allow people to take control of their personal data and to prevent bothersome and unnecessary junk mailings.
	I have been contacted by the Swimming Teachers Association, which feels a little bit peeved that it was not involved in the excellent decision to extend free swimming to the over-60s and under-16s. The programme involves a lot of money being spent—£140 million—including on 49 development officers. It would seem prudent to involve all relevant parties, so that we can strengthen decision making on how that money is to be spent. I hope that in future, the Swimming Teachers Association will be included.
	When I was on the Select Committee on Health, I suggested an inquiry into allergies. I am raising this issue on 2 April, not in the summer. There are so many allergies that people have today; I am thinking particularly of hay fever. The availability of allergy therapy through the national health service is patchy and varies enormously between primary care trusts. Availability of anti-allergy medication, vaccines and immunotherapy is limited, and greater urgency is needed in giving devolved primary care trusts money that is ring-fenced for allergy therapy.
	I wish to mention the Kennel Club and dogs. The ability of dog owners to comply with their obligations under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to provide their dogs with off-lead exercise has been compromised by the introduction of dog control orders under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, particularly where no alternative provision has been made. The Kennel Club believes that to date at least 120 councils have implemented dog control orders, sometimes issuing as many as 100 orders in an area, although there could well be more. Research shows that the biggest factor for owners when choosing where to exercise their dogs is whether they can exercise them off the lead. If that is not possible locally, more than 40 per cent. would drive elsewhere, despite the detrimental impact on the environment. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs guidance accompanying the 2005 Act states that local authorities should show that dog control orders are a "necessary and proportionate response". In practice, that has been largely ignored as many local authorities have taken the most restrictive approach. Furthermore, although local authorities are required to notify Natural England of any proposed dog control orders on access land, very few appear to have done so.
	I end with some good news about Southend council. I am delighted to say that the Audit Commission has given it a three-star rating; that means that it is a local authority that is continuing to improve, under the excellent leadership of councillors Nigel Holdcroft and John Lamb and the chief executive Rob Tinlin. All in all, and given the challenging economic backdrop, Southend council is doing extremely well. I join others in wishing everyone a happy, healthy Easter.

Eric Joyce: Last week, I read a test that those who want to live in the UK and take UK citizenship have to pass. At a meeting of my constituency Labour party, we discussed whether we could answer the questions ourselves. I bought a little book with all the questions from the Portcullis House bookshop. Actually, some of them are not that easy; some are quite tricky.
	One of the questions asks about the role of a Member of Parliament. I take it that the answer in the book is the one in the official documentation, although the book may be wrong. The answer given was that he—or she, indeed; I am sure that whatever term is used is gender-neutral—

Chris Bryant: I am sure that it is.

Eric Joyce: I am, too; I am sure that that has not been missed. The answer was that Members of Parliament meet their constituents and raise issues in Parliament. There were also a few other subsidiary points about the things that Members of Parliament do. However, the book did not say that we legislate; it mentions nothing about legislation, which strikes me as the oddest thing.
	I have been here for eight years. I am not the most experienced Member, but I have seen things happen and how different Members do their jobs. It seems to me that the only statutory function of a Member is to legislate. All the other stuff that we do is a matter of local style, and we do it all in different ways. Some Members have a lot of contact about council issues, while others tend to leave that to councillors. It depends on the local political context. The single thing that we do is to come here to legislate in what we think is the interest of the common weal, if I can put it in that rather aggrandised way. That is primarily what we are here for. All the party politics and so forth come on top of that; they are important, and we all have our philosophical predispositions in that respect. But the most meaningful stuff, which I like to get my teeth into—I mean constituency cases, which we all have—is that which has a direct bearing on current legislation, for good or ill. When I say "legislating in the common weal", I do not always mean our producing new legislation; sometimes it is not a bad idea to get rid of legislation when it is unnecessary.
	I shall tell a little story. Recently, I came across a case that gave me a great opportunity to look closely at a tiny area of policy that had a really marked influence on the life of a constituent—indeed, probably several thousand women in Scotland, as it happens, were affected by this legislation. A woman, who shall remain anonymous, came to my constituency surgery. I cannot remember what the original issue was, but as I was ushering her out of the door, finishing my cup of tea, she said, "It would be good if you could help me with that, because I lost my child benefit last year when my child started at the further education college." I asked her to run that by me again, because for other reasons she had already explained that she had a child who had left school and was in her second year of a course at the local FE college. The child was 17, and the woman had lost her child benefit.
	All Members will be pretty aware of what the child benefit regulations are, because lots of constituents come to us with different issues relating to them. It was immediately obvious to me that there was something very peculiar about her losing her child benefit because the child was in further education. The general principle of child benefit, which is a universal benefit, is that parents are given assistance, regardless of income level, in bringing up their children until they are regarded as adults. Generally speaking, under the regulations drawn up by the Treasury, someone under 19 and not in advanced education—not at university or an equivalent, or doing an HND, which is just below university level; in higher education, essentially—would be excluded. Otherwise, if a child—or a student or person; the word "child" can be seen as pejorative and some 16 and 17-year-olds would not be happy with it—is still under 19 and in school or equivalent, then child benefit applies.
	This woman's 18-year-old child was doing an HNC at Falkirk college, which is now called Forth Valley college, it having absorbed the colleges in Stirling and Alloa. Some Members may not be immediately acquainted with that development, but it was very important in my area. It is a fabulous college with a really good recent inspectorial result. I thought that the case was peculiar, so I looked into it. The girl is planning to become a nurse, so she is on a pre-nursing course. She is doing that instead of being in the sixth form, so she will end up with a qualification that is the equivalent of advanced highers in Scotland—the equivalent of A-levels down here. Her mother therefore should not have lost her child benefit—that was clear as a bell to me as soon as she said it.
	I checked up on the situation. Some of this stuff is devolved because education is devolved in Scotland, but the child benefit regulations are not. It is a question of having different qualifications across the UK. The relevant institutions—the Scottish Parliament and, I guess, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly—have to say that their qualifications are equivalent to certain English ones, and then the child benefit regulations are drawn up accordingly. There is a table in the child benefit regulations, which are drawn up by the Treasury and implemented by the Department for Work and Pensions, laying out non-advanced and advanced qualifications. It is pretty clear-cut. On one side are GCSEs, or standards in Scotland, A-levels, BTECs in England, and so forth; on the other, degrees, HNDs and so forth.
	The Scottish HNC is a one-year qualification, full-time, or a two-year qualification, part-time. In England, what used to be called an HNC is essentially a part-time HND, which is a two-year course. An HND is an advanced course and an HNC is a non-advanced course—the equivalent of a BTEC in England. It transpires that the officials in Scotland seem to have missed that detail and agreed with the Treasury that an HNC is an advanced qualification. The DWP therefore assumes that all these students will be going into the second year of their two-year course in colleges all over Scotland, and effectively disqualifies their parents from child benefit.
	That has implications. Child benefit is a gateway benefit, so my constituent loses not only child benefit but a number of other benefits. I will maintain her anonymity by saying that she has an unusual benefit that I had never heard of before, which is not constrained by income. In total, this woman was losing about £8,000, not taxed, in the one year when she was wrongly disqualified. That is remarkable. I suspect that in my constituency—I am taking a stab here—several hundred people will be affected. Although most people doing HNCs are returners, quite a few do them as an alternative to sixth form, and they are clearly a BTEC equivalent. People in Scotland are being treated differently as a consequence.
	I wrote to the Treasury, fully expecting a big barney, and I have now met the relevant Minister—the Financial Secretary. I hope that this is not too presumptuous of me, but I think that they agree. They would not have had much of an argument because the Scottish Qualifications Authority—a fabulous, very efficient organisation that my sister works for, so I always have to say that—has a diagram that simply says that the Scottish HNC is the equivalent of an English BTEC. The peculiarity is why, when the Treasury fired this process up in the first place, it was agreed that they were equivalent when a difference should have been spotted.
	For the moment, the outcome is that the Treasury is taking a careful look at the matter. I hope that it will make a correction and move the qualification across the line—I think that it is doing so—so that in the coming year, people who were previously disqualified from child benefit and other associated benefits will qualify. There is, of course, the question of what happens to my constituent, whose child will have finished the course by then. The effect will be that several thousand people in Scotland—mainly women, but it is not necessarily women who take child benefit—will benefit to the tune of somewhere between £1,000 and £8,000, which is perhaps what my constituent would have received, in one financial year. That is a significant bunch of cash, and it depends on a tiny detail. I cannot really blame the Treasury because lots of stuff is going on, and there is a lot of complexity in the vastly important bits of legislation it is dealing with.
	Reflecting on my laborious entry into this position, given the generous amount of time we seem to have available—

Chris Bryant: You don't have to use it.

Eric Joyce: My hon. Friend says that I do not have to use it—

Helen Goodman: indicated dissent.

Eric Joyce: I note what both of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench are saying, and it is not necessarily the same thing.
	What I was banging on about was this: in this place, one can do a lot as a Back Bencher, looking at legislation and picking things up instinctively. If something seems as if it is not right, quite often it is not. Often that is just the way it is; we do not get perfect solutions to everything. Constituents may come along and say, "That person gets a certain benefit, and I do not. We are on either side of a dividing line—why is that?" It is not really possible to say, "There is a continuum, we have to draw the line somewhere, and that is just the way it is." The most difficult thing to say to a constituent is often, "I know that it's not really fair, but that's just the way it is. I am not saying, "Life's not fair", but sometimes, by definition, legislation will be a bit clunky, and there will always be marginal cases that are unfortunate, which we cannot do anything about.
	In this case, however, we could do something about it. I think that the outcome will be fine, but when I reflected on the meaning of the case from a political perspective, I saw that something else was going on, apart from the fact that the Scottish civil servants had apparently responded badly. It did not seem to happen at the political level; as far as I can see it happened because of an official's error in Scotland. I do not think that it was just a case of someone being slack.
	There is a different mental process going on in Scotland at the moment. I am not obsessed with the whole devolution/independence/non-independence nexus but it is interesting to see how civil servants in Scotland operate differently in the new political context, and that is not necessarily healthy. Recently, I had to write to the Scottish Executive to inquire about some detail in this case. It is purely a constituency case—it has no party political basis, and it would not bother me if it had. I am quite keen that the Government should change the rules, and if they do not, I will continue to say what I am saying now. I wrote to Historic Scotland, staffed by civil servants, and I got a super, professional response from the experts on the ground. They are the experts in the nexus of planning, building, history and all that stuff. Those experts are ultimately employed by the Scottish Government, with a link to the UK Government. The civil servants there engaged with me—they said that they did not make the decisions, but explained how the process worked and the sort of the thing that could be expected. They explained how people would logically respond and gave their views as experts, emphasising that Ministers might not take the same view and so forth. I therefore got a good steer from the professionals in Historic Scotland—the response was first class. I met them and they took me through the stuff. Ultimately, they are civil servants and they work essentially for the Scottish Government, not the UK Government, although there is a clear link.
	That was contrary to my other experience. I do not blame civil servants for that—it is the culture and the way in which they have to work in Scotland now. I used nursing as a way into the problem. I could have used engineering, but I chose nursing because many people doing the HNC were doing the nursing version and then going into nursing education. The scheme is a combination of policy, knowledge of education, especially higher and further education, and so on, so the people who pulled it together are essentially the civil servants and experts who work under the auspices of the Scottish Government. Sometimes they work for agencies and sometimes as conventional civil servants in a conventional Department.
	I wrote to a civil servant, explaining that I had a problem and that I was not sure whether I had the right end of the stick, and asking for a heads-up or general idea of whether what I said cohered. I phoned initially and got a call back saying that the relevant official would ring me, perhaps before the end of the day. However, instead, I got an e-mail saying that there was some concern that I was a Member of Parliament rather than a member of the public so the query had been referred to the official's boss. It became clear through a series of e-mails that those—doubtless excellent—civil servants were afraid to have any communication with a Back-Bench Member of Parliament who was making inquiries about a legitimate constituency case, with no party political intent. I appreciate that it is difficult for people to make that judgment, but I was putting a fairly technical argument, and it appeared easy for a person with a good bit of knowledge about the subject to give a professional opinion.
	I ended up getting a letter or an e-mail from someone more senior in the organisation who said that civil servants were not permitted to communicate with Members of Parliament. Even worse, I was told that if I wrote to the Minister, the civil servants would send me a description of the procedures in Scotland. I was in a position whereby, as a constituency MP, I could not ask the experts for an opinion. I was not asking about procedure, because that is a matter of wiring diagrams and so forth. I knew the procedure like the back of my hand—that is how I perceived the problem in the first place. However, as a constituency MP in Scotland, I could not ask the Government a technical question and get a technical response.
	The difference between the two examples, which I have given at some length, is that Historic Scotland is an agency in its own right. People can describe it better than me, but I would say that, although it is an agency and therefore works for Ministers, it has self-confidence as a professional body with its own professional integrity. If people ask it questions, the staff will give their professional opinion, while stressing, "You can quote me if you want but I might be wrong or people might disagree." They are confident in giving their professional opinions. However, there are other parts of the civil service in Scotland, which are much more sensitive and work at the direct command of Ministers. Unlike civil servants in Departments here of whom I have asked technical questions, those in Scotland appear to have been told not to speak to Opposition Members of Parliament. As a constituency MP, trying to get at something to which there is no corollary here because the expertise is in Scotland, there appears to be significant dysfunction.

Robert Smith: Is not it the convention here that we do not talk directly to civil servants, except with the permission of the Minister for whom they work? Indeed, that came to light when my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) dealt with the fridges directive. Members of the European Parliament got access to civil servants and could make clear to them the approaching disaster, but the Member of Parliament who dealt with the subject here could not have that direct access.

Eric Joyce: The hon. Gentleman may well be correct—I am sure that he is; he has been here longer than me—but if he is, I was not aware, because I do that all the time. All sorts of people are experts in their field, but if we cannot talk to them, we simply cannot get knowledge about a particular situation. If I wanted to know something obscure about traffic regulations or something like that, I probably would not write to the Minister.  [ Interruption. ] I can see my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House on the Front Bench looking like I should write to Ministers.

Chris Bryant: I am not looking like anything.

Eric Joyce: My hon. Friend moved as though he was looking in a particular way, but from here I could see only his finely honed pectorals heaving, which I probably misinterpreted.
	In any case, in the example of MEPs that the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) mentioned, the corollary of us speaking to local government officials may be MEPs talking to sovereign Government officials. Where it will clearly not be politically embarrassing, there will be all sorts of situations in which common sense says that it is useful to pick up the phone and ask someone who is a technical expert a question. I find it extremely helpful to pick up the phone in that way where there are technical issues, although not in party political cases—one would always deal with Ministers in that way where something was sensitive, and I would not expect to put civil servants on the spot in any sense. An example might be local jobcentres, the immigration service or the various help lines, where we basically speak directly to civil servants. I will speak to local jobcentre officials, Child Support Agency officials or immigration officials regularly, and that works extremely well. There are no party political issues at stake: I will just be looking after the interests of a constituent.
	Having waxed orchestral about that issue, perhaps I could start to draw to a close.  [ Laughter. ] Or perhaps not.

Chris Bryant: No, perhaps.

Eric Joyce: Perhaps. Let me draw together the strands of that extensive description of HNCs and education in Scotland. There is tremendous scope, if we look carefully at legislation, to see little niggles here and there that we can tidy up. If we tidy them up, sometimes that will have significant effects on constituents. My phase 2 argument is that there seems to be a bit of a dysfunction in Scotland when it comes to MPs gathering information—we gather it anyway; we just gather it by a different route—and talking intelligently to officials. The dysfunction seems to exist in those Departments that are under direct command and control, as opposed to being among the professionals, who have personal self-confidence and perhaps more a sense of professionalism, and who will say, "This is my professional opinion." That is increasingly absent among the experts in certain parts of the Scottish Executive.
	May I wish everyone an enjoyable Easter, including you, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Sarah Teather: I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in this debate before the House rises for Easter.
	Last week, Brent Friends of the Earth, my local branch, held a number of screenings of the film "The Age of Stupid". If hon. Members have not seen the film, I strongly recommend that they go and see it. It is a powerful film, campaigning for action on climate change. The film features Pete Postlethwaite as an archivist in 2055. He is pictured as the last man alive in an archiving centre somewhere off the coast of Norway, looking back at films from 2009 and asking why we did nothing to try to halt climate change when we had the chance. One of the people in the archive films asks whether people will look back and think that we were living in an age of stupid, when people were stupid not to see what was staring them in the face.
	As the G20 meets today, having bumped climate change off the agenda, I cannot help but think that we almost certainly do live in the age of stupid. Not only has the G20 bumped climate change from the agenda, with the decision to look at it at the Copenhagen conference later this year, but it will have failed—at least I expect that it will have failed; we await the Chancellor's statement later this afternoon—to link the fiscal stimulus that so many countries are arguing for with the green economy. That most certainly is a very stupid thing indeed.

John Randall: Does the hon. Lady not agree that the Government can have no credibility at all on climate change while they persist with their ridiculous plans to enlarge Heathrow airport with a third runway and a sixth terminal?

Sarah Teather: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. My constituency, along with his, will be affected by increased noise as a result of the expansion of Heathrow. I might well return to that point later.
	It is as though we are trying to compartmentalise climate change into one conference and one meeting, and to turn it into something that can be discussed only at that meeting. By taking it away from the economic reform agenda, we are encouraged to think of it as a special case that we come together to talk about and which we forget about as soon as we leave the meeting. In so doing, we demonstrate that we have failed to grasp the seriousness of the problem that we face.
	The issue in that film that stood out and left the most lasting impression on me was the story of the young Nigerian woman, Layefa Malini, who wanted to become a doctor. She lived in the Niger delta and suffered the consequences of the oil harvesting, the pollution and the poverty in the area. She told of the challenges in her life as she wrestled with the problem of putting together enough money to enable her to go off and study. She described the impact that that had on her, and her choice to give up fishing in order to sell oil illegally just to make enough money. That story left me with an overwhelming sense of how we live in excess here, and of how much poverty there is elsewhere in the world. That sense of injustice struck a chord with me, as did the impact of climate change on the poorest people in the world.
	We often talk about climate change as an abstract thing, a scientific debate involving international jargon and diplomacy. Frankly, most of us cannot get a handle on it. I have a degree in natural sciences, although if I am truly honest, I must say that much of the science involved in the climate change debate leaves me cold. However, the image of the poorest people in the world, who are likely to suffer the consequences of what we are doing, strikes a chord with me. They are also likely to suffer first and most profoundly. I suspect that that would be a galvanising force for most people if they really understood the consequences of what we are doing to the poorest people in the world.
	Climate change will affect us all, and it has no respect for international boundaries. It is the poorest people in the developing countries, who are already held back by a chronic, sustained lack of resources and power and by poverty that limits choice and security, who will first, and most profoundly, experience the consequences of what we are doing here. Developing countries are the most vulnerable partly because of their geographical position and partly because so much of their population is reliant on rain-fed agriculture. Also, many of those people live in appalling living conditions.
	Poverty exists regardless of climate change, but climate change is already creating a vicious cycle that will rob people of their ability to improve their own situation. It threatens to wash away much of the progress that we have made towards achieving the millennium development goals. This ought to be a matter of serious concern to the Government, as they have made the delivery of those goals a key plank of their own international priorities, but that is being undermined by our failure to tackle climate change in a serious, sustained way.
	Natural disasters already happen more often in developing countries. If we look back at the natural disasters that happened in the 1990s, for example, we can see that in the eight years between 1990 and 1998, 94 per cent. of the world's 568 major natural disasters happened in developing countries. That ought to give us pause for thought. People in those countries are more vulnerable to their effects because they often live in very poor-quality, overcrowded accommodation. They are susceptible to losing their homes, and their water sources tend to be polluted. It is not only the major disasters that have an effect, however. The more subtle changes will also have devastating consequences. Crop yields are predicted to fall by as much as 50 per cent. in some African countries by 2020 because of the impacts of climate change.
	The story of Layefa Malini, which I mentioned earlier, struck a particular chord with me because I visited Nigeria last summer to work on a project with Voluntary Service Overseas. I visited the capital Abuja while I was working on an education project. I then travelled north to Kaduna and Kano and south into Enugu, so I saw people living in very different conditions. We moved out to visit some of the rural areas outside Abuja and saw the problems people faced because of lack of water. People living in those villages will be particularly affected if rainfall decreases and they are unable to get clean drinking water.
	Kano, one of the most northern places in Nigeria right on the border up near Niger, has a very arid climate, but it is also prone to flooding during the rainy season. Niger has already experienced the devastating consequences of desertification as the Sahel moves further into areas occupied by people. Many people have been forced to flee into Nigeria, looking for a method of making a living. North Nigeria experiences the consequences of displaced people moving from Niger into Kano and neighbouring areas.
	I saw the consequences of flooding during the rainy season when I was in Kano. Along with many other areas in the developing world, Kano does not have a sewerage system. Sewage moves through trenches in the road, effectively, sometimes just a few inches below the path people are walking on. It does not take much water to wash that sewage out into people's homes, on to footpaths or into the road. When it rains in Nigeria in the rainy season, it really rains. People quickly find themselves walking through one or two feet of water, all of which is sewage-infested water that transmits disease, making it miserable for people to live with. Drinking water, in as much as there is any, becomes quickly polluted with sewage and rubbish.
	One particular problem I noted in Nigeria was the failure to deal with rubbish in a sensible way. I am afraid that landfill is often actually open rubbish in the streets, and flood water washes toxins from rubbish straight into any drinking water. Even if the water is boiled, it is often still too toxic to drink.
	The young woman shown in "The Age of Stupid", Layefa Malini, lived in the Niger delta region—an area we expect to be particularly affected by coastal flooding. It will be even more difficult for people living there to eke out a living as their farm lands become less and less inhabitable. It is not just Nigeria, as Ethiopia and Kenya have already experienced the devastating consequences of drought. Those two countries are predicted to be the first in line for climate change impacts, with lack of rainfall and effects on food security.
	In Africa, the intergovernmental panel on climate change predicts that water stress will affect between 75 million and 250 million people by 2020, which will rise to 350 million to 600 million by 2050 if we do not take dramatic action on climate change. Of course, as I said, changes in agriculture lead people to change where they live. Many people living in rural areas find that they need to move into towns and cities in order to make a living. It is often young members of a family who are asked to leave for the towns and cities to try to send money back. Charities working in Cambodia have said that that can have a real impact on disease, with many people previously living in rural areas—perhaps mainly the young—moving into cities, but then returning with HIV or other infections, which are brought back into the rural areas. Clearly, the impacts of climate change are much more profound than just a bit more rain or heat.
	We can also expect dramatic changes in conflicts as the competition for resources becomes more and more acute. In 2007 and 2008, because of rising food prices, we witnessed food riots in more than 30 countries. International Alert has estimated that in more than 46 countries, which are home to some 4.6 billion people, climate change, in conjunction with existing problems around economic and social issues, will create a very high risk of violent conflicts.
	The consequence will be increased migration, internally displaced families, and families moving across international borders, most likely to other developing countries that are ill equipped to deal with an influx of poor people. We think of refugees as a problem that we face here, and of course the Government have been keen to drive down the number of people trying to claim asylum in this country, but if we were really serious about wanting to reduce that number we would make a more serious effort to tackle the causes of poverty and conflict, and to prevent conflict from arising in the first place. It is not our country that bears the burden of looking after refugees, but other, poor countries that are ill equipped to do so.

David Drew: Will the hon. Lady add northern Nigeria, which I have visited, to her list of causes? It is a maelstrom in the conflict between the Christian and Muslim world. All too often, people who should know better use every opportunity to cause such conflict. Many communities that have lived together for generations are now being forced apart by religious discrimination.

Sarah Teather: I agree. The area around Jos in particular has experienced conflict between Christian and Muslim communities. In Kaduna, another place that I visited, the two communities live together. Relations can be very tense, and if the difficulties involving food and water resources continue to increase, that will only heighten the tension. It is not only religious tension that is at the root of the problems. Religious tension is often an excuse, or the label given to something much more profound relating to land, food, money and water. It is certainly true that Nigeria has had its difficulties, and it is a country that I know, but many other countries face similar problems.
	We may have only a few years left before atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases reach a tipping point, and we find ourselves on an irreversible journey towards dangerous climate change. We cannot underestimate the importance of taking leadership on that issue now. The challenges that we face in tackling the financial crisis should provide us with opportunities to tackle climate change in a lasting way. Some of our present economic and environmental problems may have the same solutions. If South Korea can produce a fiscal stimulus of which 80 per cent. concerns the green economy, we must ask ourselves why on earth we cannot do the same. It is not too late for us to cancel the VAT cut, and to put the money saved into insulating homes, schools and hospitals and building new zero-carbon homes. That would enable us to tackle fuel poverty, house the homeless and do something serious to deal with climate change for the long term. Instead, we have given a small amount of money to a few relatively rich people who want to buy expensive goods such as flat-screen televisions, which seems petty given the problems that we are facing.
	It is not too late for us to match our reform of the banking sector with carbon reporting. If we are not prepared to do that, at least we can influence our own banks—the banks that we now control—to prevent environmentally damaging investments in tar sands and deforestation. We should try to use the control that we have over many of the banks to build a new economy that will itself build for the future, rather than simply trying to replace the broken problem that we already have.
	It is not too late for us to take a lead by cancelling damaging environmental projects such as Heathrow, or unabated coal power stations such as Kingsnorth. It is not too late for us to take a lead on renewables, and to adopt a credible strategy for the meeting of our 2020 targets. I fear that the Government have given up, feeling that it is too late for them to do anything before the next general election, but they have an opportunity to leave a legacy regardless of the result of the election, and I wish that they would take it.
	The G20 may have junked the environment this week, but we have time before Copenhagen in December to lay the groundwork for a serious climate deal that could make a huge difference. We need our Government to take a lead on that now, and to be at the forefront of climate negotiations. We must have a serious commitment to cut emissions by at least 30 per cent., not the 20 per cent. with time off for carbon trading that came with the European Union deal. We must also put developing countries' concerns at the heart of the climate change deal. We have grown rich in part by polluting. We must now repay that debt to the developing world by financing and sharing technology so that countries can access clean and green energy and develop in a sustainable way, and we must help developing countries to adapt to the damaging consequences of climate change that will, unfortunately, happen regardless of what we do.
	We need to create space to encourage and enable communities to come up with their own solutions. That is the case in both developing countries and here in the UK. We need the Government to take a lead, but this is the responsibility of all of us, and good ideas often come from communities, rather than just from Government. I am thinking of one example in Brent in particular: a woman called Lorraine Skinner felt so frustrated about the consequences of climate change and the fact that people were not prepared to act that she designed a new system called "green zones", which has now been adopted throughout Brent. She went door to door and talked to her neighbours on her road. It is a relatively small road, but by her efforts she has managed to raise dramatically the amount of recycling and composting that takes place on it. She has also given people tomato plants and persuaded them to plant them. That may be a small thing, but sometimes it is small things that actually change people's attitudes—such as on growing their own food or feeling that they can take action. A similar small thing has been done in Camden, where people have been encouraged to plant fruit trees in the middle of their estates. As a result, they feel that they can play a part, and that there are things they can do.
	We all have a role to play, but I hope the Government will consider the key role that they have to play, particularly before the Copenhagen conference later this year. We do not have time to waste waiting for another international meeting. We must not junk this issue and wait until a later meeting to address it because we cannot face tackling it now.

Shona McIsaac: I sometimes wonder whether I have done something to upset the gods of democracy—whom we can rename the Whips Office for the purpose of this analogy—because today is my wedding anniversary and I find myself in the House of Commons Chamber. Also, tomorrow is my birthday, and last year this debate fell on my birthday. It therefore appears that I am not allowed out of this place to enjoy such events.
	There are, however, several issues that I want to bring to the attention of the House and Ministers in advance of the Easter recess. The first of them is a very local issue: the Humber bridge. Indeed, most of the issues I shall raise will be extremely parochial, in contrast to the international themes raised in the speech of the previous contributor, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather).
	The Humber bridge links my Lincolnshire constituency with Yorkshire on the north bank of the Humber. At the beginning of March, there was an inquiry into a proposal to increase the tolls to cross the bridge by 20p each way. I presented evidence at the inquiry against the toll increase, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) and the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart). More Members of Parliament would have given evidence had we not been the only three whom the Whips Office allowed out. However, although only three MPs from the region appeared, we put our case forcefully and stridently on behalf of our constituents.
	Everybody in my area has opposed the increase in the bridge tolls. As I am sure Members can appreciate, in any economic climate, let alone the current one, people do not welcome having such an extra pressure on their purse. People from across the political divide were saying that to the inspector. However, my concern and the reason I want to raise the issue today is that the public inquiry was at the beginning of March, has not reported yet and obviously has to go to the Secretary of State for Transport, so constituents have been left in limbo, not knowing whether the inspector will approve the increase in the tolls.
	This issue is vital, because there is an ongoing campaign about the tolls to cross the Humber bridge. The four unitary councils in the surrounding area came together and commissioned research to show the tolls' economic impact on our area. Everybody had said anecdotally that the tolls were a barrier to economic development and growth. However, the report showed that empirically, so we now have very strong evidence to enable us to present to Ministers the case that the tolls were holding back the economic development of our area. The campaign is therefore ongoing. Putting aside the 20p increase, which everybody is against, people generally want the tolls reduced to get rid of this barrier.
	Three options are available as a way forward. There is a debt from the building of the bridge because the money was borrowed from the public works department. However, despite the fact that over the years the tolls have paid off the original amount borrowed, because of interest the debt keeps rolling on like some huge behemoth and we never seem to be able to pay it off. The campaign is concerned with the Government's writing off the remaining debt owed to the Treasury arising from the money borrowed to build the Humber bridge. As I say, the capital amount has been paid back already from the tolls. However, that leaves the question of the repairs to, and the maintenance of, the bridge, and this is where the options come in.
	I was quite surprised by the outcome of the surveys that I conducted on this issue. The first of the three options is to write off the debt and for the Government to take over responsibility for the Humber bridge, paying for all the repairs, maintenance and so on. There would be absolutely nothing left in the way of debt, and free crossings for everybody—wonderful! The second option is to write off the debt and to pay for repairs and maintenance through increasing the council tax. The third option is to reduce the tolls substantially to, say, £1 per crossing, and the money raised could cover the cost of repairs and maintenance.
	I thought that the majority of people would go for the "nothing to pay" option, but in fact, most went for the token amount. Some 75 per cent. of people said, "Paying a pound would be okay, and that would cover the repairs and maintenance." Interestingly, virtually nobody thought that it would be an excellent idea to increase the council tax to cover the repairs and maintenance, although there was one person—I think he knows who he is—who suggested that we bring back the ferry that used to connect the village of New Holland with the city of Hull. He was the only person who wanted that.
	We presented the case to Ministers through Adjournment debates in the Chamber, but because the inspector has not reported on the 20p increase that the bridge board wants to introduce, we cannot bring delegations from the business community and local authorities to Westminster to press the case for reducing the tolls overall. We are, in essence, in a state of limbo.
	I hope that my raising the issue today means that the message will work its way through the system, so that whoever needs to know about it realises that we need to take this issue forward, particularly in this economic climate, and that the inspector reports and we can then make progress on our lobbying to reduce the tolls.
	What is gratifying about this campaign, which will be ongoing, is that the bridge board, which has been somewhat reluctant in the past to agree with Members of Parliament about tolls, has understood the weight of opinion in the area for reduced tolls; it has seen the empirical research commissioned by the councils showing that there would be substantial economic growth if that barrier were reduced. The board itself has said that it would like to try out, for perhaps a year's trial period, a toll of £1 to cross the bridge. Its view has come into line with that of the people campaigning on this issue, but we cannot make progress on this because we have not yet had the report. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will make sure that the right ears hear that particular plea.
	Last night, a debate on business rates took place in the Chamber, during which I said that if there are job losses in my constituency, as I believe there will be as a result of this double taxation on certain core businesses in the port of Immingham, the hinterland of the people involved will be cut because of the tolls on the Humber bridge. For someone who has lost their job, the idea of paying more than £5 for a return to cross the bridge will make them think again about applying for a job on the other side of the river. To many of my constituents the whole area on the north bank may as well not exist. The travel patterns were part of the research conducted, and it was demonstrated that the toll was a substantial barrier. People do not cross the bridge to access training, so it is also hindering their opportunities. I feel that it also affects social mobility in our area. I know that people turn down jobs on the other side of the river because they do their sums and work out that they will spend more than £1,000 a year in tolls.
	I have just been talking about the toll for cars, but the Humber bridge is one of the only major toll bridges where there is also a charge for motorbikes. The toll for freight is phenomenal and, because of the cost, businesses avoid taking jobs that necessitate crossing the river. That is why it is vital in this economic climate to see whether something can be done to give a stimulus to economic growth in that part of the country. The Government have said that they will do all they can to help British businesses through the economic downturn, and acting on this issue would be an excellent way to give a boost to my part of the country.
	I believe that I mentioned my next local issue in a previous recess Adjournment debate; the regulars here will doubtless groan when I mention compensation for former distant water trawlermen again —[Interruption.] I hear the Deputy Leader of the House groaning. I am sure that many a burly ex-trawlerman would not take kindly to that type of groan from him. This is a serious issue, because these people lost their livelihoods as a result of a Government decision at the end of the cod wars to refuse the generous quotas being offered by Iceland; their fishing grounds were no longer available to them, they came home to port and they had no livelihood. For years, they campaigned for compensation, and it was only in the late 1990s that that was agreed. Our community greeted that news with great delight. My father was in Iceland at the time as a member of the Royal Navy, doing fishing protection work rather than as a trawlerman. Sadly he is no longer with us, but he always used to say that it was a great injustice that the trawlermen had not received any compensation.
	The scheme was introduced and people were paid up to £20,000, but there was a serious loophole. None of the experts or the people on the ground in our community noticed it, but it meant that some people were paid nothing or had their compensation substantially reduced because of what are called breaks in service. If people had a break of a certain number of weeks in a long career, they lost compensation. The scheme was probably set up like that in an attempt to copy the redundancy rules, under which if people work in a factory for 10 years, leave for three months and then come back, they have broken the continuity of employment. But of course in the fishing industry the labour was pooled, and people were given a ship if one was available, so it was a fragmented way of working. Someone might get a job, go away for a few weeks, come back and be off for some weeks. That meant that some people were excluded from the compensation scheme.
	We have recently had some success in addressing that problem, and the Government have amended the original scheme to try to put right that injustice. However, we think that we have found another flaw in the system. I hope that we do not go ahead with the rules for additional payments with that flaw. The problem is that the new rules propose that the only people who will be eligible for the compensation are those who applied under the original scheme in 2000. If people applied and they received no compensation or a substantially reduced amount, their cases can be reconsidered. However, in Grimsby the local authority funded some advice workers to help the former trawlermen with their applications, and they told some of the potential applicants not to bother applying because they would not qualify under the rules. So those ex-trawlermen never applied. Only those who applied at the time will be eligible. I hope that that issue will be addressed, because it would be a gross injustice if the new scheme—which was meant to put right an injustice—excluded those people.
	The consultation on the scheme still has a few more weeks to run, and I recently had a marvellous meeting with more than 100 former trawlermen to involve them in that consultation. We held the meeting in the national fishing heritage centre in Grimsby, which is a marvellous little museum, and we were able to introduce the men and their families to what is, in effect, their centre. Many of them had not been using the centre. In a lovely gesture by the centre, which also gave me the use of the facilities for free, all the former trawlermen who came that day have been given a free pass to the centre so that they can bring their grandchildren and other relatives and show them what it was like in that industry, which created the great port of Grimsby—Grimsby fish is still known around the world.
	My next point is to do with a consultation, again. People will begin to see why I am raising all these subjects today—a feeling of inertia arises when consultations are under way, and when people do not have the answers and cannot move forward until they get them. This consultation concerns the siting of Travellers' sites in North Lincolnshire, one of the two local authorities that cover my constituency. There has been quite extensive consultation, which is now closed, and I submitted comments on behalf of my residents. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole and my right hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) also commented on the proposals. Of course, we are left not knowing what the result will be or when we will find it out. We need to consider that fact when we have consultation processes or public inquiries. It is all very well to have a statutory consultation period—fine, we can all work with that—but why is there no statutory period in which we have to be told the outcome? That would be my plea, as it would give people certainty that they will get their answers.
	I now want to talk a little about school meals in north Lincolnshire, in the Grimsby and Cleethorpes areas. I have campaigned for a number of years to improve school meals. One of my grandmothers was a school cook, who cooked marvellous food. My father was a cook in the Navy, so that is something that is clearly in the McIsaac family blood. We like our food, we like to cook and we want to ensure that everybody else enjoys good food, too.
	I have campaigned to improve school meals in north-east Lincolnshire. Sadly, several years ago the council let schools decide whether to keep kitchens or to get rid of them. A number of schools got rid of their kitchens and offered sandwich options or baked potatoes. I campaigned with parents, with the schools and so on, and took the issue up with Ministers. Everybody has been very supportive of the idea of introducing the improvements. Ministers have been marvellous and listened to the case that we presented for funding to bring back the kitchens and put good food back on the menus.
	I do not have any problems with that, but then things became absolutely ludicrous. After all those years of campaigning, the Department for Children, Schools and Families said that they were going to be running pilot schemes for free school meals for all primary age children. I thought, "Hallelujah! That is exactly what I have been campaigning on for a number of years." In the current economic climate any saving, even a saving of this nature, will be a real bonus for families. North East Lincolnshire council was invited to be one of those that ran the pilots, but it said, "No". The schools say that they would love the scheme, the parents support the idea and the Members of Parliament think that it would be a good idea, but the council says that it does not have enough money, because the scheme is match funded.
	Ideally, I would like the Government to consider running some pilot projects that are not match funded, as that would help councils that find themselves in financial difficulty. My North East Lincolnshire county council is in that position: it was one of the negligent authorities that lost £7 million when it invested that amount in Icelandic banks just days before the collapse.
	I am told that that loss has had no impact on the council's decision not to produce the match funding that would ensure free meals for primary school age children. However, the council has other investments and the money is there, so I do not understand its approach. I hope that the Department for Children, Schools and Families can do something to help, either by setting up a fully funded pilot or simply by telling the council to get its act together.
	I want to speak about a couple of other subjects, and the first is ministerial correspondence. I shall not name the Department or the particular Minister involved, but I am getting heartily fed up of sending almost fortnightly reminders, especially given that it can take nearly four months to get a reply to my original letter. That is not acceptable. I keep apologising to constituents and telling them, "Sorry, the Minister hasn't replied yet and, yes, we are reminding him," but nothing happens. I also do the other normal things, such as putting down parliamentary questions asking when to expect replies to correspondence dated X, Y and Z, and I get the usual little letter that appears in response, but it is never just a one-off. With some Departments, the process is continuous, and that is wholly unacceptable.
	Another problem is that the quality of the response often leaves a lot to be desired, even when I am writing on behalf of pensioners. For example, I once wrote to a Minister about illiteracy and adult literacy, and all I got was a very short reply to the effect that the information that I needed could be found by clicking on a website. I am sorry, but that is not good enough. It is not the sort of response that we should be sending out to constituents.  [ Interruption. ] I can see that the gods of democracy—that is, the Whips—on the Front Bench are giving me the evil eye. That probably means that the Chancellor can now come to the Chamber to make his statement. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) is eager to take part in the debate as well, and I will not deny him his chance.
	Finally, I want to talk about circuses. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) mentioned certain animal welfare issues, and my constituents are not particularly happy that a circus will be coming to Cleethorpes over Easter. There are always protests, and allegations of cruelty to the animals. I believe that the circus has managed to get hold of some elephants this year, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe spoke about this circus when it visited his constituency some weeks ago.
	Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, I was a member of the Committee considering the Bill that became the Animal Welfare Act 2006. My memory may be affected by age—it is my birthday tomorrow, so there is another year to add on—but, unless it has gone completely, I seem to recall that the Government said that regulations or something would be brought forward to stop the exploitation of performing animals in circuses. Years later, however, the circus is still trundling up every year. The animals are still there and every year there are allegations of cruelty. In this day and age, surely we can resolve the issue once and for all. That type of entertainment belongs in the past.
	With that, I wish everybody a wonderful Easter break. I am not in competition with the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning) in this Adjournment debate. She always extols the virtues of her constituency and invites Members to spend some of their holiday there. Tiverton is lovely—my great-granny was from there. I have no qualms about people going to Tiverton, but I invite Members to the Lincolnshire coast, to see Cleethorpes and the wonderful delights of that part of the country—but not the circus.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Measures:
	Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) Measure 2009
	Church of England Pensions (Amendment) Measure 2009

Easter Adjournment

Debate resumed.

John Randall: I apologise to the House for not being in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate. I always like to attend the whole of these debates—I think I qualify as one of the regulars—but unfortunately other matters took me away earlier.
	It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac)—also one of the regulars. From time to time, she mentions her birthday. I cannot believe that the years go past so quickly. She once described herself as Minnie the Minx. It might be said that she still has the youthful qualities of Minnie the Minx, but she also has the statesmanlike qualities of a Government Back Bencher.
	The hon. Lady was kind enough to refer to the Whips as the gods of democracy. I realise that of course she was referring to the Government Whips, who are indeed very much gods. I am an Opposition Whip. We are probably from the underworld, but it is a great delight to address the House from the other side of the River Styx about some of the issues that affect my constituents, and more widely.
	During the Christmas Adjournment debate, I mentioned that my mother was in hospital. Members on both sides of the House were kind enough to wish her all the best. It was good to know that people took an interest and she has certainly recovered. It was useful for me to see the NHS in action.
	I hope this does not become a regular part of my speeches, but my mother, who is rather like me and of an awkward nature, has decided that she should feature every time we have an Adjournment debate. At the end of last week, she was readmitted to Hillingdon hospital, with another complaint—she has broken something in her ankle. Once again, my first-hand experience of the accident and emergency department at the hospital has been only good. Even my mother has to admit that the food she is receiving in hospital, which last time she was kind enough to describe as pig swill, is now perfectly acceptable, although as she is in bed most of the time she does not find it very easy to eat. However, if I am lucky enough to get home this evening in time to visit her in hospital, I shall do what I can to help her.
	Sadly, my mother has been disabled for some time. Tomorrow, the other Hillingdon MPs and I will be speaking to DASH—the Disablement Association Hillingdon. One of the problems that the group has been made aware of is the accessibility of public transport to disabled people. From first-hand experience with my mother and other people, I know that accessibility has improved in recent years but a range of problems remain to be addressed. Strangely, we do not really understand such problems until we experience them; we may do so through somebody else, as I did, but some people unfortunately experience them for themselves.
	Some of the problems are not apparent straight away. Request stops for buses are an obvious example. I have to say that until I came across the issue, I would not have thought that it was a problem. I now realise—it is quite apparent—that people who are partially sighted or blind have a real problem; they do not know when a bus is coming. I am not sure whether request stops comply with some of the disability laws. There is also evidence that some bus companies give their drivers contradictory information on whether people are allowed to bring mobility scooters on to the vehicle. That causes many problems and much distress to some people, because some people with mobility scooters are allowed on and some are not.
	There are differing reports about problems to do with audible announcements. I have to say that there have been vast improvements in public transport. I do not think that we can deny that, but there are still problems. Some people have suggested to DASH, and to me, that the audible announcement service is inconsistent, and that sometimes drivers switch off the facility. Even if one is fully in control of all one's faculties, sometimes it is difficult to know where the stops are, but if a person has a disability of any sort, that information, which can now be supplied, is invaluable.
	Members often hear of cases in which the ramp allowing people in wheelchairs or of limited capacity on to the vehicle is not working properly. The bus operating company and the people in charge will say, "No, the ramp is there," or "The information is there, and it should be used." Sadly, the reality is that that is not always so.
	I now come to an issue that I have often raised, but have not mentioned for a little while. However, I make no apologies for raising it again now. A couple of days ago, it was the 10th anniversary of the beginning of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Unfortunately, I was not able to attend an event that was held here; I was visiting my mother in hospital. However, I am pleased, in some ways, to report that things have moved on. I have attended several meetings, in this place and elsewhere, that have shown that this country, and what is now Serbia, now have a much more positive attitude about the way forward. To a great extent, that will be through the European Union. Enlargement is a whole other subject, however, and I shall not go into it today, but I do want to raise an issue of great importance.
	It is often the victors who write the history, and some things are not always mentioned. An investigation was initiated by The Hague tribunal in 2003 and 2004 concerning crimes committed against Serbs by Albanians, who forcibly took their vital organs and traded them. The case concerned just under 1,300 Serbs and Roma people who disappeared during the conflict in Kosovo. The evidence, mentioned in Carla Del Ponte's book, tells how those Serbs and Roma were removed from their homes, taken forcibly to a place in northern Albania called Burrel, and had their organs removed in a psychiatric hospital. People were left dying in horrible conditions, and the organs were sold.
	I mention that because when we consider all the conflicts around the world, sometimes it is those forgotten details that we should concentrate on. When we try to get people together to work towards a new order, it is important that crimes and atrocities—committed, no doubt, by both sides—are treated equally. Therefore I ask the Deputy Leader of the House whether he will draw the issue to the attention of his colleagues at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and report back on the Government's position.
	Of course, one of the features of Easter time is—I speak very passionately about this—the sales in retail department stores. I make no apology for that, because at least this time the Government are hoping that consumers will elevate the economy by spending money.

Nicholas Winterton: At Randalls.

John Randall: My hon. Friend mentions the name of a leading store in a certain part of my constituency, but I am not thinking only of that. It behoves us all to go out and spend money. I disagree with the Government about the VAT cut, but I shall ignore that and say that I am sure that throughout the country there will be bargains aplenty.  [Interruption.] The Deputy Leader of the House is right; sometimes, I get carried away with my own marketing. Seriously, retail outlets—and their suppliers—are suffering, like many other businesses, from the lack of credit insurance. Businesses in my constituency have repeatedly told me that that is as important as anything else. I hope that when we come back after Easter, I will have the opportunity to raise that issue.
	The hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) mentioned "The Age of Stupid"—a film, I believe, although it could describe my past few years in Parliament. I will not say why; it might be personal or it might have something to do with the other side. The hon. Lady mentioned climate change and, in an intervention on her, I mentioned the significance of Heathrow and our problems with the Government's plans for its expansion. That issue will not go away until the glorious day when the Conservative Government take over and those plans are thrown into the rubbish bin for ever.
	I also want to make a point that follows on from a speech that I made yesterday in Westminster Hall. I am concerned about a recent event in which a photographer was taking photographs of the houses in Sipson—the village that will be destroyed by the Government's bulldozers—and the police intervened, allegedly using terrorism laws to explain why the photographs should not be taken. Further to that, my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), was stopped and searched in Birdcage walk; he made a point of order about it here. I am concerned about the way things are going with regard to a lot of these powers. We should take a step back. We are worried about terrorism, and rightly so, but our individual liberties should not be taken away from us so easily.
	Others want to speak; this is always a popular debate, and I do not want to take up a lot of time. However, the hon. Member for Cleethorpes, the birthday girl, mentioned tourism. Uxbridge and the London borough of Hillingdon in general are excellent places for people to come and stay; they can visit the capital and will not be far away from the countryside. However, the arrangement will be reciprocal. I am going to Norfolk for five days, and it will be the highlight of my year, as I will be able to get away from it all. The great thing is that mobile phones do not work terribly well where I am going, so I will not be bothered too much.
	On a final note, next week I am taking part in a sporting event—that may come as a shock to many colleagues. I am saying this because I do not know whether this will be the last speech that I make in this House. I expect to be on the field at Twickenham on behalf of the Lords and Commons rugby team. In case there is an imminent by-election, I would like to thank all the Members of this House, all the Officers of the House, the staff, the civil servants who help us, and all my colleagues. I have had a great time, and I could not think of a better way to go: I wish you all a happy Easter.

David Drew: It is a delight to follow the possibly soon-to-be-late hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall); it has been a pleasure to know him. I did not think he wanted another by-election in Uxbridge, but if that happens we will not dance on his grave but will remember him in the most appropriate manner.
	I know that other hon. Members want to speak—I can see that my good friend, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) wants to say a few words—so I shall try to keep my remarks a bit shorter, even though I was told earlier to make them a bit longer. Somewhere between the two, I shall try to make a particularly apposite and relevant speech. I wish to raise four issues: three briefly, but one at greater length as I am very concerned about it.
	The three brief issues are, first, something on which I have campaigned with other hon. Members, namely wage compensation for those in the automotive industry to go along with training packages; secondly, the demand for a supermarket ombudsman; and, thirdly, some of the issues to do with energy efficiency and fuel poverty. I want to talk at slightly greater length about school staff suspensions, which is irking me at the moment.
	The issue of wage compensation has been well rehearsed by my hon. Friends the Members for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden). It affects my constituency, and I hope that the Minister will take on to other Ministries the plaintive plea that we must do something about it as a matter of urgency. Two of my local companies, Delphi and Renishaw, have staff on short-time working. With the help of several agencies—the regional development agency, Gloucestershire First, Business Link, and the learning and skills council—those companies have got together some effective packages for training to use some of the spare time that people have to ensure that when the recession ends, let us hope sooner rather than later, they will be ready to deal with the upsurge in demand. These are state-of-the-art companies—the best of British manufacturing and the future of British manufacturing.
	I could have gone on at great length about the anti-industrial culture of this country, citing the book by Martin Wiener written in 1981—"English Culture and the Decline of the Industrial Spirit: 1850-1980", which I studied at considerable length. That culture has been here for too long. We have seen our finances crushed, and that is all too obviously why we need our manufacturing industries and need to redress the balance. It would be a tragedy if we were to lose these companies. I do not think that that will happen, but they will be seriously damaged if we do not bolster them and support them.
	Like other Members, particularly those I mentioned, I believe that the Government have to move quickly on wage compensation. They should recognise that these companies and individuals are willing to invest in the future, and it is right and proper that the state should do the same given the desperate times in which we live. I have had conversations with the Secretary of State, with the Minister of State and with the Minister for the South West, who has kindly agreed to meet representatives from the two companies as a matter of some urgency. It is right and proper for those of us in this House to continue to make the Government see that they have got to move on this issue.
	The second issue is one on which I have formed an alliance with the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), who sadly is not in his place, calling for the delivery of a supermarket ombudsman, which has been recommended by the Competition Commission. Sadly, it is opposed by the majority—though not the totality—of supermarkets. He has been in the vanguard of the pursuit of this matter—I have referred to him as the witchfinder-general on more than one occasion—and steadfast, which is the measure of a good Member of Parliament. He took the issue up, followed it through and is dealing with the unfairness that has come about because of the anti-competitive and monopolistic nature of too many of our larger supermarkets, and because of what they have done to the supply chain of farmers, wholesalers and customers, who are entirely at the whim of these behemoths—I think that that is the "in" word.

John Horam: I am interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the supermarket ombudsman, because a large Tesco is opening in my constituency shortly. Does he not feel that part of the problem is the local planning authority, which is often suborned into agreeing to Tesco and allows a store to be built in the wrong place because of the money involved? Is not that a real problem, as well as how the supermarkets behave?

David Drew: It is, and it is a separate issue about which I feel strongly. I only wish that the ombudsman could take on those responsibilities—at least by holding the ring for those who wish to complain about the unfairness of the way in which out-of-town stores are developed far too easily, with all the damage they do to our town centres. The ombudsman's role is clear, precise and easily laid down, and it is up to the Government to deliver that through the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. They must stand behind the Competition Commission and make sure that the commitments made are delivered. We must not allow the supermarkets to do what they usually do by threatening all manner of legal challenges, and of course they will say that the ombudsman will damage prices and the way in which they operate. We know all too well that they have had the field to themselves for far too long, and there needs to be some rebalancing.
	On fuel poverty and energy efficiency, I was tempted to intervene on the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) because I agreed with many of the things she said. Her hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) introduced the Fuel Poverty Bill, which sadly did not make progress when it came before the House. Issues were raised about the Bill, but it must come back into play, and it should be part of a reorganisation of what is a good news story for the Government. I am proud of the amount of money we have put into addressing fuel poverty, but we could spend the money more wisely, and make even more impact. That is the basis of the current debt review, but the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, of which I am a member, is about to publish a report on that topic, so I shall be circumspect about what I say.
	We have to pay attention to three areas. First, there is a plethora and confusion of initiatives, which need to be simplified so that the householder is clear about what is on offer, what they should be paying and who is capable of delivering it. Secondly, neighbourhood renewal delivery should be the major mechanism involved, instead of a pepperpotting of money, which is wasteful and not nearly as effective as it could and should be. Thirdly, we need to recognise that the millions upon millions of hard-to-heat homes that we are left with—where older people often reside—will be more difficult to deal with, and we will need special measures. The cap on the amount of money and the limitation on properties that are more difficult to deal with must be addressed because we cannot afford to have the most vulnerable living in properties that cost enormous sums to heat, which has an impact on our climate.
	I shall finish by talking at more length about an issue that has exercised me for much of the last year. I have been wary of mentioning it in anything other than an oblique manner, but I am pleased to say that it has become a topical issue. Anyone who heard "File on 4" a couple of weeks ago knows that the programme considered the number of school staff who are currently suspended, or who were suspended and subsequently lost their jobs. I will not go into all sorts of cases or case law. I am pleased that the Children, Schools and Families Committee has announced an inquiry. I will submit evidence to it in May, and I have spoken to the Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who knows how strongly I feel about the matter.
	I want to bring two cases to the House's attention. I will not use names—the people are well known in my area and I believe that they have suffered enough. However, I will set out some of the problems that occurred as a result of what transpired in each case.
	The first case involves the head of a secondary school in my constituency, who has been suspended since November. There are genuine concerns about the basis for his suspension, which dates back to an Ofsted report. Interestingly, the report was critical of the governance of the school, but not of its management. It was therefore surprising that the head was suspended. Since then, there has been an exercise in trying to trawl for information to use against him, much of it on the basis that he is guilty of bullying and harassment.
	I have known the individual for more than 20 years—indeed, the accusation will be thrown at me that he is a friend of mine. I am proud to call him a friend. In times of need, one does not deny friendship, and one takes up the case. I will continue to bat on his behalf, although the process is difficult. One of the saddest aspects is that he was prevented from watching his son play rugby because his son attends the school. He was told that he was not welcome, not only on the premises but on the sports field. That shows how totally the process can envelop someone.
	Since the suspension, the individual has been able to talk to officials on various occasions, but denied the opportunity of talking to governors lest he contaminate those who will eventually make the judgment on his right to continue as head. Interestingly, the teacher union in the school chose to carry out a trawl of its members.
	My main criticism—I will deal with three criticisms when I have outlined the other case—is that there is an imbalance between those who are trying to prove their innocence and those who claim that the individuals are guilty and get the process under way.
	I am sad because the case has done enormous damage to the school by setting people against one another. We are now well into the fourth month, and the case needs to be resolved urgently. However, all I know is that the independent investigation continues and that when and if the case is heard, the individual will have to provide evidence in his defence. Sadly, he is much on the defensive and unable to prove his innocence because so many of the cards are stacked against him.
	The second case is that of a head of care at a special school—not a teacher, and, in many respects, unable to have some of the protections that teachers enjoy. The person has been in education all their life and at the school for 27 years. The case resulted from the suspension of a head teacher, and the local authority, Gloucestershire, called in the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children to carry out an investigation. I question that decision because the original charge was to do with someone else—the head and his management style—yet the NSPCC was called in and conducted an inquiry. I have written to the local authority because I would like to see the evidence that the NSPCC came up with. I have been forbidden to see it. Even more important, the individual in question has not been able to see it, even though it is the basis of the charges against him. After he and the head were suspended, both the deputy head and, eventually, three other members of staff were suspended, so at one point six members of staff were suspended. All that will have had an impact on the school.
	It is very sad, because that individual was dismissed and lost his job. He subsequently got a job at another school with the same authority, but the head of that school was effectively told to get rid of him. Since then, that individual has been reported to the Independent Safeguarding Authority, which will take him away from any contact with children if the complaint is upheld. That is wrong. His only recourse now is an employment tribunal. He is preparing for that now, so I will be careful not to say anything that might in any way preclude his ability to prove his innocence.
	I have three worries about how the system operates and about how people have to try to prove their innocence, which is vital. The first point that I would ask my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House to look into is the process of investigation. Whoever conducts an investigation, if one is held, whatever is found should be available to both parties. I am convinced that the defendant, as it were, does not have the same access to that evidence. That is not acceptable. We would not have the prosecution not disclosing evidence to the defence in a court of law.
	My second point is: who oversees the investigation? We seem to have a flurry of governors being created—some because of the contamination, and so on.  [ Interruption. ] I am now being given the nod by the Whip, so I will finish quickly. I want to know what power the local authority has to increase or change the governing body, because that can change the basis on which someone's inquiry is held. I know that we have an inquiry and an appeal, and subsequently someone may choose to go to an employment tribunal.
	My third point is about proportionality. In both the cases I have raised, neither individual had a blemish on his record. They had not been called in for a verbal warning, let alone a written warning, but both went straight on to suspension, on the basis that they would subsequently be dismissed. That shows a lack of proportionality. It also shows poor management, in that if those people were so guilty, why were they not hauled before somebody previously?
	Those are grave issues. I will raise them in much more detail before the Children, Schools and Families Committee, which I congratulate on trying to address them. For too long the issue has, unfortunately, been swept under the carpet. Other heads have been suspended for other reasons. Sadly, such events are not unusual. Something is wrong and something needs to be done about it.

Nicholas Winterton: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). He spoke with great passion about a constituency case. Many of us have had similar cases to deal with.
	I want to raise four things, but almost in single sentences. First, let me highlight to the Deputy Leader of the House the ongoing crisis facing local newspapers. In my area, the  Manchester Evening News—or the Guardian Media Group, which is the umbrella company—is closing the offices of all its weekly newspapers, with 150 people being made redundant, some 78 of whom are journalists. That is very serious. How will people learn about what is happening in their local courts or, for that matter, what is going on with their local authority, local sports clubs or local charities? There will be a deficit of democracy and information. The Government should pay heed to that.
	Secondly, I want to highlight the plight of savers. The issue was raised by someone who came to me and said, "I've got £100,000 invested with a bank in a high interest savings account and I'm getting a 0.1 per cent. return on that money. I asked the bank how much it would loan that money out for, either to a secure private individual by way of a loan or to a business, and it said 9 per cent. plus." That bank is therefore making a substantial profit on any secure loan that it makes. The Government must take into account the position of those who have been responsible and saved—I refer in particular to the elderly and the retired, who rely on investments from their savings to provide a decent quality of life—rather than just bailing out the banks, which continue to pay substantial salaries and, yes, sadly, even bonuses.
	I should also like to highlight the plight facing the Cheshire youth choir. At the weekend, I was privileged to hear it twice: once as part of a concert put on by the Macclesfield male voice choir, with which it shared the concert, and again on Sunday, when I attended the magnificent thanksgiving service in Chester cathedral to mark the 120 years of Cheshire county council. At midnight on my birthday, which was on Tuesday, the council ceased to exist, as did the six borough and district councils in Cheshire.
	The Cheshire youth choir made a fantastic contribution to that service, under the inspired leadership and direction of Dr. Shirley Court. It is truly inspirational, it is magnificent, it is fabulous! I cannot find sufficient words to describe my admiration for that choir, and it is successful because of Dr. Shirley Court. Under the restructuring of local government in Cheshire, there is no guarantee that resources will continue to be made available to the choir beyond July. Will the Government tell the new authorities—Cheshire East and Cheshire West—that the choir must continue as a choir for the whole of Cheshire under the leadership of someone who is respected internationally, nationally and locally. She is unique, and if Cheshire loses her, I can only say that those who are responsible are fools.
	Finally, I want to refer to the point that I raised with the Leader of the House earlier today on the Government's proposal that Members' contributions to their parliamentary pension should increase from 10 per cent to 11.9 per cent. That increase would be backdated to 1 April. I said that the problem with the fund is not that it has to pay out too much money to Members—there is inevitably going to be a longevity element involved—but that the Treasury has taken a contributions holiday for 14 years. The Treasury is the employer of Members of Parliament in respect of their pension contributions, but it has not been a responsible employer. Will the Deputy Leader of the House acknowledge that the Treasury has not paid its full contribution, and that that is the real problem? If Members were asked to pay another £60 a month, when their modest 2.33 per cent. increase would give them only an extra £68 a month from 1 April, it would place many of them under increased pressure. It would also be unfair, particularly when this is not their problem but a problem caused by the Treasury not meeting its commitment.
	I hope that everyone has a happy Easter.

William Cash: Those who do not learn the lessons of history are condemned to discover that things can go badly wrong if they do not do so. The G20 summit is taking place today, and we are going to have a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a few minutes' time. One issue that I can encapsulate quickly today—although it needs to be developed—is the question of democracy. I believe that we are now being presented with the question of what Parliament is for, not only by the events of the G20 and the international context but also domestically. We must also discuss what we should do to reform our parliamentary system, given all the press engagement in these matters at the moment. The whole question of values is being inverted and overturned, in regard to what people expect of us, not merely as Members of Parliament but as people. Moral values have been abandoned to a great extent.
	To return to my point about learning lessons from history, it is important to remember those who created our modern democracy in the 19th century. I am studying that subject closely at the moment, because we have to learn lessons from the way in which they created this democracy and remember them when we apply them in our own time. Our democracy is dwindling away and, in my belief, the House of Commons is becoming increasingly less important in the public mind and less relevant when the needs of the people we serve are growing ever greater.
	We also have to consider issues connected with local newspapers, which my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) mentioned a few moments ago. It was the relief, introduced by John Bright and others, on the tax on knowledge that created local newspapers. I think that today's protesters depend on freedom of speech, but I think the question of whether that can be exercised with responsibility is another issue.
	Questions relating to the BBC and the manner in which it exercises its charter are relevant, as are questions about the manner in which Select Committees are appointed and the extent to which they are or should be elected. Taking evidence on oath is another aspect. There are many questions that we need to look at. Where is the power? That is a question that we have to ask ourselves, but I shall leave that to another occasion.

Shailesh Vara: I start by thanking everyone who has participated in today's debate. I am mindful of the time constraints, as we are due to hear a very important statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer at 5 o'clock.
	We heard a passionate contribution from the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) to start off with. He spoke of the need for vibrant shopping centres, particularly in his constituency, although I am minded to say that it is an issue with which we can all sympathise, particularly in view of the challenges posed for retail outlets given that so many purchases are made on the internet. That point was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). Having lived in his constituency, although it was when I was at Brunel university and he was not the MP then, I can confirm that he has an excellent retail outlet in the form of Randalls—a store that I would certainly recommend to anyone visiting Uxbridge.
	Returning to the speech of the hon. Member for Telford, I fully appreciate his frustration with the numerous reviews he spoke of in respect of local health services. As he said, there has been a lot of talk, but little achievement. This is not an unfamiliar story: he gets it at his local level; and the rest of the country gets it at the national level, where there are reviews after reviews after reviews. Basically, it means kicking things into the long grass, which is where they often stay—with a further review or yet another one undertaken "as is necessary". The sad thing about it is that it costs millions of pounds, and we, the taxpayers, have to pay for all these reviews, when the money could be much better spent on front-line medical services, transport and so forth.
	The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) addressed in his excellent speech the issue of restoring confidence in the banking system. He spoke about the need to improve the flow of liquidity, the need for individuals, as well as small and medium-sized enterprises and corporations generally, to have more funds. Yesterday, I spoke to a businessman who told me about two instances where the banks—and these are tax- funded banks—are not only being difficult about providing lending to companies and individuals, but are actively seeking to take a shareholding in successful companies.
	When I asked about normal banking agreements, the reply was that these banks would prefer to take a share of successful organisations because their income would be far greater. I have to say that the individuals concerned were very frightened by the prospect. They are worried that if they say no to the banks, their banking facilities will effectively be terminated. I very much hope that the powers-that-be will look into that, as it is not for banks to put unnecessary pressure on customers in respect of their existing agreements.
	The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby) made a detailed speech about development proposals in his area. He speaks of such matters with some authority, being a past leader of the council. He raised a number of serious issues, some of which related to transport and projected employment numbers.
	I have to say, on the basis of personal experience, that whenever a developer comes along and promises a huge number of jobs, I ask to see the details. On one occasion, I found that the number of professionals being employed to carry out the development had been included in the list of people for whom jobs would be created. The impression conveyed to the constituents, with the aim of selling the project, is that x jobs will be created, but x includes the construction workers, professionals and so on who will not be around in the long term. I wish the hon. Gentleman well in his efforts to obtain the satisfactory answers that he seeks.
	Having heard a speech from a knight of the realm, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), followed by one from another knight of the realm, the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby), I suspected that a trend was developing, but I was reassured that the common man had a voice in the Chamber when we then heard a contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson). I hope that, by making that observation, I have not damaged any prospects of ennoblement that he may have.

Robert Wilson: Where's my knighthood?

Shailesh Vara: As I say, I hope that I have not damaged my hon. Friend's prospects.
	My hon. Friend made a diligent and conscientious speech, as he always does when trying to serve his constituents to the best of his ability. He demonstrated the great depth of his knowledge of education matters when he spoke about the Learning and Skills Council. I am sure that the House was concerned to learn of the appalling conduct of Reading borough council. Of equal concern is the fact that my hon. Friend is having difficulty in engaging in a conversation with Vodafone, which I gather from what he has said is the way forward.

Chris Bryant: Give them a call.

Shailesh Vara: I believe that my hon. Friend has tried that, and has not received a reply. I wish him well in his attempts to make progress on the important issue that he raised. He also raised the crucial issue—especially crucial in the present economic climate—of irresponsible lending. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House took account of his comments, particularly those concerning his constituent Trevor Howard, and that the message will be passed on to the relevant people.
	The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) made a thoughtful and powerful speech about the Iraq war. Let me take this opportunity to congratulate all our brave men and women who are serving in overseas theatres, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan but also in other posts that may receive less publicity. Having visited some of our troops in Afghanistan last November, I can verify that they are among the finest young men and women we have in this country. The hon. Gentleman raised a number of other important issues, and I hope that the answers to his questions will be forthcoming.
	I am pleased to say that the long-awaited inquiry for which Conservative Members have been calling for such a long time will now finally happen, although I think it regrettable that it is to be held in private. I hope that many of the questions asked in the House today, as well others asked by many other eminent people, will receive satisfactory answers from that inquiry.
	The hon. Gentleman also spoke of the need for the House itself to receive legal advice. I do not know whether he was present during business questions this morning, when the Leader of the House said that the Attorney-General's advice on the issue of privilege with respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) would be placed in the Library. Although that is not what was meant by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, it strikes me as an advance in the right area for legal advice to be available for all Members to view, rather than just the privileged few on the governing side.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), a veteran of these Adjournment debates, made a typically varied speech. I think that we all agree with his concerns about childhood obesity, and I also hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will pass on his suggestions as to how to convert cooking oil into carbon-neutral electricity. My hon. Friend also raised the important matter of allergies, and I entirely agree that that is an increasing issue for the national health service and primary care trusts. I echo his sentiment that treatment for allergies is patchy. Given that it is a serious issue and that it is taking lives, I very much hope that the powers-that-be will look into it. May I also join him in congratulating Southend council? I hope the people he mentioned will take note, as will the other colleagues who help run the council.
	The hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Joyce) made a very fulsome speech, although I have to say that there were conflicting instructions from those on his Front Bench: on the one hand, it appeared that the Deputy Leader of the House was being critical at one point, but I shall give him some support by saying that I think he was acknowledging the point that was being made, rather than groaning with discomfort. I just say that in the interests of cross-party support.
	The hon. Member for Falkirk raised the matter of a constituent of his and the need for the Treasury to look at the qualifications for child benefit in some circumstances, and all the Members who were present will very much look forward to hearing the outcome of that, because he gave a detailed explanation of the difficulty his constituent was experiencing. He also spoke of the difficulty in getting information from some civil servants in Scotland. I, for one, certainly have much sympathy with his point about the difficulty in getting information from civil servants, Ministers and the like, given that Opposition Members regularly find that we are up against a stone wall in that regard and that very little, if any, information is forthcoming from the Government.
	The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) also raised that issue. There were conflicting comments from those on her Front Bench on that. Her Whip, the Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household, the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), expressed disapproval of her, and not, I suspect, simply because she was going on a bit, but because he would have preferred her not to criticise the Government on that particular issue.

John Spellar: No, it was because she was going on a bit.

Shailesh Vara: The right hon. Gentleman may say that, but I am minded to say that after a drink or two he might confide in honesty, and say that he was also concerned that one of his own troops was having a go at the Government.
	The hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) raised the very topical issue of climate change and the environment. That is clearly a major topic for all of us. I must also give her credit for making a very caring and compassionate speech. She referred to the film, "The Age of Stupid". I am unsure whether she is aware that the star of that film, a gentleman by the name of Pete Postlethwaite, has an award and has said that he will consider returning it if the relevant decisions are not taken at the G20 summit. Clearly, therefore, the statement we will shortly hear from the Chancellor is not only important in its own right and will have an impact on what we have to say, but it will influence whether he decides to return the award, which was given to him by Her Majesty.
	No one will have failed to take note of the hon. Lady's comments about her visit to Nigeria; she spoke of sewage-infested water and the horrific diseases that can flow from that, as well as the lack of water and food supply generally in Africa.
	It is a sobering thought that, as she mentioned, in the 21st century there are some 30 countries in which food riots have occurred. Unless we do something drastic to address poverty, migration and all its consequences will have a huge impact. This is an enormously important subject that the whole House will recognise needs to be dealt with. The G20 summit conclusions are following shortly, and perhaps there will be some hints as to the way forward on food poverty.
	I compliment the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who intervened on the hon. Member for Brent, East to speak about religious tension and intolerance. We all recognise that the world has enough problems in trying to feed, and provide water and shelter for, everybody. I am sorry to say—I think the House will agree with me—that there is increasing incidence of religious intolerance in the country that the hon. Gentleman spoke of, Nigeria, and worldwide. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West spoke of the increasing incidence of anti-Semitism. That is a serious issue and we must not address it simply in terms of what is happening overseas; we must look at the possibility of, and real existence of, intolerance of minority communities in our own country.
	The hon. Member for Cleethorpes spoke today, as she regularly does in these Adjournment debates; she is a very familiar face. I congratulate her on her wedding anniversary today and wish her a very happy birthday for tomorrow. I hope that, in arranging her constituency engagements for Saturday and Sunday, it has been borne in mind that she has two celebrations in the preceding 48 hours. She raised the issue of the need to reduce the toll charge on the Humber bridge. She was right to point out the economic consequences of the decision that will eventually be forthcoming from the inspector's report, which is awaited with considerable expectation.
	The hon. Lady raised the issue of compensation for trawlermen and cited some harrowing instances of people who, quite innocently, seem not to have put in their applications. I hope that the small print in the agreements will allow for those left out of the scheme to be considered as well. She also gave a wonderful tourism promotion for her constituency, as she always does. It was good that she acknowledged my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning), who is not here today, in that promotion. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be grateful that, despite her not being here, her constituents nevertheless got a tourism plug.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge gave a fine speech. I am sure that his constituents will want me to note what an excellent and hard-working constituency Member of Parliament he is. I was heartened to hear that his mother is well, or was well when he began his comments; we all felt for her at the last such Adjournment debate. However, I am very sorry to learn that she is back in hospital with an ankle injury. On behalf of the whole House, I ask him to convey our thoughts to her and wish her a speedy recovery. We are all pleased that the quality of food is a lot better than it was last time round.
	My hon. Friend raised a very good point about disabled people and the facilities they have access to—and, as was made clear, often do not have access to. The inconsistency of service for this large sector of our community—some 10 million people—needs to be addressed. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be aware that the Speaker's Conference is examining ways of ensuring greater representation for disabled people in this House, but we parliamentarians need to ensure that outside this place we give full recognition to the very serious concerns and needs of those 10 million people.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge mentioned the horrific practice of organ trafficking. I am trying to host an event in the House on tackling organ trafficking—I am just waiting for the proper date to be found—and I hope that he will be able to take part in it. He also mentioned photography, on which he made an excellent speech in Westminster Hall yesterday—it has received widespread publicity and I thank him for it—and again he made some valid points. May I say, on behalf of the whole House, that we very much look forward to seeing his return to the House fully fit after making his contribution for the Lords and Commons rugby team? He spoke of a potential by-election, but I am sure that the House would miss his wit, charm and general brilliance, as well as his generous contribution to those of us who seek to be slipped in the Whips Office.
	The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) made a passionate speech, and I believe that the House will agree with the points that he raised on sympathy for those in fuel poverty and on energy efficiency. He talked of the plethora of institutions and initiatives, and the confusion that they often involve, and we note those two points. Two other fine contributions were made by my hon. Friends the Members for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and for Stone (Mr. Cash). They kept their comments brief and I shall keep my comments about their contributions brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish you and the House a very happy recess.

Chris Bryant: It is good to see so many Members gathering in the Chamber to hear the culmination of this debate, which has been a great one—just two lawyers have spoken. That reminds me of the fact that in 1697 Tsar Peter the Great visited these Houses of Parliament. When he walked through Westminster Hall he was perplexed to see so many lawyers and he said that he thought that in his dominion there were only two and that when he got back home he was probably going to execute one of them. It has been great not to hear from too many lawyers today and excellent to hear from 15 former councillors. Those involved have represented Islington, Leicester, Reading, Redbridge, Wandsworth, Powys, Wrekin, Oakengates, Hammersmith and Fulham, Hackney, Stevenage, Stroud, Gloucestershire, Stonehouse and Warwickshire.  [Interruption.] And Aberdeen.
	I should apologise for suggesting in the equivalent debate at Christmas that these debates when we all gather together were rather like episodes of "'Allo 'Allo!" —the same characters rehearsing the same lines—because today's debate has been more like an episode of "The Vicar of Dibley". My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who is not in his place, is the Councillor David Horton; in the same way as the character really loves the vicar of Dibley but tries to pretend otherwise, my hon. Friend really loves the Labour Government, despite the fact that in his speech this afternoon he was trying to pretend that he does not. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) referred to how much she loves food, and she is the Letitia Cropley—perhaps I am being a little unfair, because my hon. Friend's father was a naval chef, so I am sure she would not be known as the poisoner of the village.
	We heard from the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), who is, as I am sure all hon. Members would agree, Frank Pickle—the very dapper member of the parish council who manages to move from the inconsequential subject to the consequential one without anybody noticing a change in his tone of voice. Frank Pickle could bore people on end with the subjects of how exciting it was when the pub completely and utterly ran out of crisps or the milkman arrived 47 minutes late. We have also heard from the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather), who must be the Alice Tinker of the House; she never quite gets the joke—I see that she is not getting it at the moment either. She has been sitting there pouting, and she is pouting again now. She rather reminds me of when all the young girls in Dickens's "Dombey and Son" are taught how to pout by saying quietly to themselves the words, "Prunes, prism, poultry and potatoes." The hon. Lady must have been a little confused today because we have had both the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar) in the Chamber at the same time, and she once confused them when my right hon. Friend came canvassing at her door. The hon. Member for Uxbridge—or perhaps I mean my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley—is of course Jim Trott, the "No, no, no, no...yes" character in "The Vicar of Dibley". He certainly looks like him. More importantly, he looks rather like the older employee of the Grace brothers, Mr. Grainger.
	We had important contributions to the debate this afternoon from many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright), who referred to his hopes for a post bank, and early-day motion 1082. We are keen for the Post Office to do more and put more banking products in the reach of everyone, to promote greater financial inclusion. We are also keen on the idea of introducing street drinking bans, and the designated public places orders system that we have introduced has enabled many local authorities to restrict antisocial behaviour in local areas, with more than 700 such orders having been made.
	The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) raised the issue of those who have savings and the assumed income of 10 per cent. I am sure that that issue is something that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who is now in his place, will consider. The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of sheep tagging, and I am sure that he is aware that DEFRA and the industry are concerned to ensure that disproportionate costs are not introduced.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby) raised the important issue of the proposed eco-town in his constituency, and I am sure that the Co-operative Society will have been listening. The hon. Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson), who still has four YouTube Christmas messages on his website—that is the wrong religious festival—raised the issue of irresponsible lending. It is a shame that he was not able to read the document "Freeing Britain to Compete", produced by his party, which stated:
	"In financial services, we should allow people to buy and sell products that are not regulated if they have signed to do so"
	and
	"it is the lending institutions rather than the client taking the risk."
	It is the hon. Gentleman's party that is opposed to regulation, not this party.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North raised important issues about our troops and paid tribute to our armed forces, and I am sure that all hon. Members share those sentiments. Our concern is to ensure that at all times our troops have the support that they need, both moral support from this House and financial support.
	The hon. Member for Southend, West raised a series of issues and I shall write to him and ensure that they are all taken up with the relevant bodies. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Mr. Joyce) raised issues relating to child benefit and how it applies in Scotland, and I shall write to him as well.
	I am afraid that I disagreed with the hon. Member for Brent, East on many of the issues that she raised, although I am sure that all hon. Members agree that the problem that the poorest will suffer most from climate change is one that we need to address. We are proud that we are the first Government in the world to introduce binding legislation to tackle climate change.
	We wish my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes well for her wedding anniversary and her birthday. She raised the issue of the Humber bridge and I shall ensure that that is taken up. On the issue of compensation for trawlermen, we hope that the new scheme will be ready before the summer recess.
	Many other Members made important contributions, not least the hon. Members for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and for Stone (Mr. Cash), my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and—my personal favourite—the hon. Member for Uxbridge. I am sure that the Chancellor will be glad to hear that the latter thinks it behoves us to go out and spend.
	I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House when I send good wishes for Easter to all those who serve us in this House—the Clerks, the Doorkeepers, those who provide food, those who occasionally serve us with a glass or two of wine or beer, the police and all the security services. I wish you in particular, Madam Deputy Speaker, a very happy Easter.

Helen Jones: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	 Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

G20 Summit

Alistair Darling: With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the G20 summit, which was held today in London. The Prime Minister is still concluding business at the ExCeL centre.
	First, may I explain to the House that the communiqué was signed off about an hour ago? For that reason, while I would normally have arranged for copies to have been placed in the Vote Office, that will not be possible for another half hour or so. They will be placed there at the earliest opportunity. I am also grateful to the shadow Chancellor and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) for understanding that I was able to provide them with a copy of my statement only very recently—in fact, about five minutes ago. However, I was able to provide them with the communiqué a short time before that. I should also explain that, in addition to the communiqué, I shall refer to a declaration in relation to financial services, which is still being finalised at the summit. It will be available at the earliest opportunity.
	May I extend the Government's thanks and appreciation —and, I am sure, that of the whole House—to the police for their professionalism and for being so effective in managing this huge policing and security operation while continuing to meet London's wider police needs?
	Today, leaders and Finance Ministers from countries all over the world have come together in an unprecedented show of unity to take action on the greatest economic crisis of modern times. That crisis has deepened since the last G20 summit and it is now affecting the lives of people in every country. Today, we have agreed to do whatever is necessary to restore confidence and growth in our economies, to repair the financial system, to restore lending, to strengthen regulation and supervision, to rebuild trust in the financial system, to fund and reform the international financial institutions to overcome this crisis and prevent further ones, to promote international trade and reject protectionism, and, crucially, to build an inclusive, green and sustainable recovery.
	There are no quick fixes, but, because of the progress that we have made today, by agreeing to work together we can begin to restore confidence, save jobs and bring the world economy out of recession.
	First, we agreed to deliver the scale of sustained fiscal effort necessary to restore growth. That does not mean that all countries will act in exactly the same way or at exactly the same time, but it does mean an agreement has been made to take whatever action is necessary to restore growth. We are confident that the action that has been agreed today will accelerate a return to trade growth.
	Since the summit in Washington in the autumn, G20 countries have announced and are now implementing the greatest macro-economic boost the world has ever seen. The combined fiscal expansion across the G20 will put an additional $5 trillion into the world economy by the end of next year. That will save or create millions of jobs across the world this year alone.
	Central banks across the G20 countries are also taking exceptional action, cutting interest rates aggressively in most countries and using all levers available to put money into their economies to support growth. We have already made available significant support for individual banking systems through liquidity, recapitalisation and dealing with problem assets in line with our agreed framework for restoring lending. In all the actions to support the economy, there is a determination to ensure long-term sustainability and price stability, as well as exit strategies for Governments' involvement in the banking sector.
	The immediate cause of this crisis is a failure in the global financial sector and in global financial regulation. It is imperative that we rebuild trust and clean up the global banking system. As part of that, we must build stronger regulatory systems that support growth and serve the needs of people and business. Domestic financial regulation must be reformed to promote integrity, guard against all types of risk, discourage excessive risk taking, dampen rather than amplify the effect of financial shocks and protect consumers as well as investors.
	We also want a more globally consistent regulatory system. To that end, we agreed today to establish a new financial stability board, with a wider group of developed and emerging countries, which will work together with the International Monetary Fund to spot risks and provide early warning. We also agreed to endorse and implement new tough principles on pay and compensation and to expand regulatory oversight to all systemically important financial institutions, including hedge funds.
	We will also take action to protect the world's financial system—and, therefore, our public finances—by cracking down on tax havens, and we note that the OECD has today published a list of countries assessed by the global forum against the international standard for exchange of tax information.
	We must give international financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank the legitimacy and the power to provide surveillance and support. It is crucial that emerging and developing economies can continue to receive the flows of capital on which they depend. Over the past few years, some 70 per cent. of world economic growth has come from those economies, and we must not let them down now.
	We have agreed a trebling in resources available to the IMF, from £250 billion to £750 billion. We also support a substantial increase in lending of at least $100 billion by the multilateral development banks, including to low-income countries.
	Madam Deputy Speaker, I think that I referred to the IMF in terms of pounds sterling: it should, of course, be dollars.
	We have also agreed to support an injection of a further $250 billion into the world economy, increasing global liquidity through a greater allocation of IMF special drawing rights. These steps will provide an additional $850 billion of financing to support growth in developing and emerging countries, which will be able to continue trading with us and other G20 economies, in turn supporting global growth and employment.
	Hand in hand with more resources will come reform of the IMF and the World Bank. Emerging and developing countries need to be represented too, so we agreed that the next review of IMF representation should be concluded by January 2011, while World Bank reforms must be completed by next spring.
	World trade has underpinned rising prosperity for half a century, but today it is falling for the first time in 25 years. So we have agreed to support international trade as a crucial driver of growth in countries everywhere. International trade is currently being undermined by a shortfall in trade finance, on which 90 per cent. of all world trade depends. So we have agreed today to make available over the next two years not $100 billion but $250 billion through G20 export credit and investment agencies.
	So in total, we have agreed over $1 trillion of additional support for the world economy, and this will support trade, growth and jobs.
	We remain committed to reaching an ambitious and balanced conclusion of the Doha development round, as we believe that this could boost the global economy by a further $150 billion a year.
	The fifth element of the agreement today is a commitment to help the world's developing and emerging countries. We reaffirmed our historic agreement to meet the millennium development goals and to each achieve our respective pledges on aid, debt relief and development. This action, and the decisions that we have taken today, will increase the resources available to low-income countries by $50 billion—for social protection and long-term food security, for example.
	We will act and do everything possible to build a fair and sustainable recovery. We agreed also to make sure that when we support our economies, we do so in a way that also protects the environment. We will support investment in clean, innovative and resource-efficient low-carbon technologies.
	We will also support those affected by the crisis by creating job opportunities and through income support measures. We will support employment by stimulating growth and investing in education, and through active labour market policies that focus on the most vulnerable.
	This is a global crisis, and today there has been a global response. We will play our full part, and I commend this statement to the House.

George Osborne: I sincerely thank the Chancellor for coming to make this statement today, before the House rises for the Easter recess. I speak for Members on all sides of this House when I join him in thanking the police for the very good job that they have done, in very difficult circumstances. We are grateful to them for keeping London safe.
	I turn now to the communiqué which, as the Chancellor said, has only just been published. What has been achieved by today's meeting, and what has not? Those are the questions, and I shall deal with both.
	The substantial increase in the resources available to the IMF was widely trailed and is very welcome. It will help economies in trouble at a time when credit is scarce, and $500 billion is pledged from member states. Of course, it is a credit facility, so is there an estimate of how much of it is expected to be drawn on over the coming year, as that will determine how much individual countries' taxpayers—including British taxpayers—might have to provide?
	Will the Chancellor confirm that the $250 billion increase in the IMF special drawing rights is in effect a form of quantitative easing, or creating money, on a global scale? What analysis has been made by the G20 of the long-term risks for inflation? What conditionality will be attached to those funds for the poorest countries? That has long been an issue of concern to development organisations and those countries themselves.
	The Chancellor mentioned a timetable for reform of governance and voting rights in the IMF, as he has before. He mentioned 2011. Is that timetable now actually matched by a hard commitment from some of the countries with large voting rights— because they had larger economies relative to the rest of the world in the 1940s—that they will give up those rights and make sure that the IMF reflects in every sense the true balance of economic power in the world?
	Earlier today, the Financial Secretary said that he wanted to reduce the stigma of going to the IMF. Exactly what did the Chancellor have in mind when the Financial Secretary said that?
	The commitment on trade finance is welcome, too, but how much of the $250 billion in credit lines and guarantees that the communiqué talks about has actually been announced already by national Governments and how much is a new commitment? Clearly, it looks as though the $50 billion for the World Bank is, but what about the remaining $200 billion?
	When will all that finance be available? As we have all seen in Britain, announcements are all well and good but what saves businesses and jobs is schemes that are actually up and running and operational. When will that happen?
	Trade finance will help to reverse the dramatic fall in global trade that is doing so much damage. Of course, rapid completion of the Doha trade round would have done even more and provided a huge stimulus to the world economy. It is a shame that—in my view—the issue was ducked in the communiqué, rather than directly addressed. Indeed, the communiqué talks of reaffirming the commitment made in Washington not to raise new barriers to investment or to trade in goods. However, since Washington, 17 of the 20 countries that sat round the table there and signed the communiqué have increased trade barriers and protectionist measures.
	The Chancellor talked about new World Trade Organisation reporting requirements and the like. Well, the WTO has reported that 47 protectionist measures have been taken around the world, so why will this communiqué be any more effective than the communiqué signed in Washington last autumn?
	On financial services, the regulation of the shadow banking system and systemic hedge funds—I suspect the word "systemic" will be important—action on tax havens and principles on bankers' bonuses are all welcome, although of course it smacks a bit of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.  [ Interruption. ] Those who supported the Government over the past 12 years should reflect on that.
	There is a distinct lack of detail. Will the Chancellor tell us whether there is now a clear timetable for introducing at international level some co-operation on counter-cyclical capital rules and reforming the pro-cyclicality of the current Basel 2 accords? Has he, and indeed the world, now taken the view that the Greenspan approach of waiting for the boom to turn to bust and then mopping up is not wrong?
	One of the principles the Chancellor set out was on toxic assets. So far, different countries have adopted different approaches. Switzerland has tried a bad bank, the US is trying to leverage in private finance and the UK has its insurance scheme. If those are all encompassed by the new principles, just how meaningful are they?
	Finally, the great thing missing from the communiqué is the one thing that the Prime Minister lobbied hardest for—that is, a new commitment to a significant second fiscal stimulus, so that the Chancellor would have cover to announce one in the Budget later this month. That commitment is very obviously not there. Indeed, the $1 trillion being trumpeted today is $1 trillion of loans, credit lines and guarantees. We welcome that, because we, too, have talked about loans and credit guarantees. What it does not contain is a single extra dollar or pound of additional fiscal stimulus. In the communiqué it is explicitly left to individual countries to decide for themselves what their own public finances can support.
	The communiqué says that the signatories should put in place "credible exit strategies" from the fiscal position that they are in. That is exactly as it should be. It is a vindication of the argument made by the Conservative party in recent months. It must mean that the Chancellor now pays attention to the advice of the Governor of the Bank of England and rules out a significant second fiscal stimulus in the Budget.
	It is right that the richer countries of the world come together to help those most in need, and we support the commitments entered into today, but the question that the British people will ask tonight is what it all means for them, once the world leaders have left. There is still the small business that cannot get credit. There is still the mother working in the high street shop who fears for her job. There is still the family who fear for their home. The G20 will seem very remote for them. No $1 trillion boost for the IMF and trade finance will help us to deal with a £1 trillion national debt, which we are leaving to our children, thanks to this Government. The truth is that Britain will be clearing up the economic mess created by this Government long after the G20 show leaves town.

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman raises nine very sensible points, and one that is not terribly sensible, but let me deal with all of them. First, he asks about the IMF and the figures. He rightly says that there was an expectation that the IMF resources would be increased; many people thought that they would be doubled. Actually, we have substantially increased the IMF resources by more than that. That is a tribute to the work that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has done over the past few weeks and months, at times being widely criticised by the Opposition. Having seen the proceedings today, I can tell the House that he was able, even in the last few hours, to extract from those there more commitments to helping people throughout the world, and he deserves support for having done that.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about special drawing rights, and he also asked a question about conditionality, which is important and has been debated in this House many times before. I think that there is a general feeling that at this time, it is important to get money into those emerging and developing economies as quickly as possible, and that to spend month after month discussing terms and conditions might be counter-productive. That is not to say that conditionality is not important. We have got to be sure that the money is spent in the right way, and we have got to have safeguards, but it is important that we make sure that the support comes through fairly quickly.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about a timetable for reform; I said that in terms of the quota, the next review needs to be brought forward by the beginning of 2011. I should add that in addition to looking at the resources and the governance of the IMF, the summit also agreed that we should consider the terms of reference for both the IMF and the World Bank, because there is a feeling that, more than 60 years after they were established, what they actually do needs revisiting as we enter the second decade of this new century.
	On the question of stigma, the hon. Gentleman will have noticed, as I am sure others have, that Mexico was able to access funds largely without comment, because, I think, people are beginning to realise that it makes sense at times for the IMF to intervene earlier, and to help countries and provide them with support. It does not necessarily mean that there is any sign of an immediate problem. That is where we want to get to—a position where the IMF helps countries as a matter of course.
	On additional funds, the hon. Gentleman is right: the test will come when making sure that those funds are made available as quickly as possible. He also raises the important matter of the trade round and Doha. That was discussed, both at the preliminary meetings and at a meeting this morning. The House will be aware that there were times, during the course of the last year, when many people thought that it might have been possible, if we had been prepared to go the extra mile, to get an agreement.
	Principally, there are problems on the part of the United States and India. President Obama made it very clear this morning that the US Government are anxious that the matter should come back to the G20. He says, however—and it is probably not an unreasonable request—that they are a new Administration and that they need to take stock of where they are and to consider how best to proceed.
	Equally, India is facing a general election this year. That means, I suspect, that for the next few months those countries will want to take stock. But no one in that room was in any doubt that it is in all our interests to get an agreement on the Doha round as quickly as possible. I hope that that explains why the reference to Doha was more limited than it might otherwise have been.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the WTO and the need to police protectionism. He is right; we are signed up to a strong declaration opposing protectionism, but that will work only if it is honoured by countries and if the WTO can act where there is a breach.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about financial services and the inclusion of hedge funds. I deliberately said that those were of systemic importance. I note what he said about pay and horses bolting; I am bound to say, though, that a fair number of Conservative Members were supporters of some of the horses that did the bolting. The hon. Gentleman should be careful about what he says on that. There is reference to the reform of the Basel II agreement, and that is important. Equally, the point made about reform of accounting standards is very important because we need to address the problem where the operation of the rules could exacerbate the situation. We need to address that.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the different approaches to impaired bank assets. He is right; the approach we have adopted with the asset protection scheme is different from the approach in the United States and Switzerland. But at the end of the day, they are all doing the same thing—trying to isolate the bad assets. As I have said to the hon. Gentleman on many occasions, I do not think that there is an ideological right or wrong on the issue; what is important is that we find a way to get bank credit flowing again.
	The hon. Gentleman's penultimate point was about fiscal stimulus. For the last few days, and even before that, there has been much speculation that there was somehow a stand-off between the Germans and the French on the one side, and the Americans and us on the other. The truth is that there is support right across the G20 to make sure that we both strengthen and reform the financial services and banking systems and do whatever it takes to support our economies at this time. The declaration explicitly commits the G20 countries
	"to deliver the scale of sustained fiscal effort necessary to restore growth."
	The only people who oppose that are the Conservative party.
	The hon. Gentleman asked what difference this makes for men and women throughout this country. I will tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, what difference it makes. This is an absolutely essential step, here and across the world, to protect jobs and make sure that we do everything we possibly can to help people at this time of extraordinary difficulty. We are prepared to play our full part; I am sorry that that is not a view shared by the Conservative party.

Vincent Cable: I thank the Chancellor for his help in getting the information this afternoon. This was a crucial meeting, part of a process of restoring confidence in a great crisis. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor deserve some credit for some of the positive outcomes; they would get rather more credit if they had not exaggerated expectations in advance of the meeting. None the less, there were some good results in respect of the funding of the IMF and the World Bank, in terms of trade credit and the commitment to fighting protectionism.
	I want to ask a series of specific questions, one of which relates to what was evidently a failure—the inability to realise an accord on the stimulus needed to growth and employment. If the French and Germans are not able to agree to a fiscal stimulus, have they specifically agreed to a monetary stimulus in Europe? Can the European Central Bank engage in quantitative easing, as described in paragraph 7? If so, how much is it proposing to do?
	In relation to the so-called "credible exit strategies" mentioned in paragraph 11, can the Chancellor explain why the British are proposing an exit strategy in 2010-11 given that the Government are committed to reverting to a deflationary fiscal policy while all the other major countries are committed to expanding it beyond that date?
	Paragraph 27 refers to a "green" stimulus as part of the fiscal package. Why is the British environmental stimulus as part of that package half the international average?
	In relation to tax havens, I welcome the agreement as far as it goes. Can the Chancellor say how many of the countries listed today by the OECD as non-compliant are British dependent territories? Why, over the past 10 years, have the Government tolerated tax evasion and criminal money laundering in British territories, and will that now stop? Can the Government give an assurance on tax policy that no company, bank or otherwise, will come for help from the British taxpayer, be it in cash or guarantees, unless it gives an absolute assurance that it will stop tax avoidance and the use of tax havens, which companies have used in the past?
	Paragraph 15 of the communiqué has an ambitious commitment to what it describes as
	"tough new principles on pay and compensation".
	What does that mean for the British banks, particularly the nationalised banks? I was told today that the Royal Bank of Scotland is proposing to double the pay of its senior management from an average of £150,000 to £300,000 to compensate for the loss of bonuses. Is that true, and, if so, will the Government stop it?
	One of the clear conclusions to emerge from this meeting is that we now have a fundamentally different international order in which there are two superpowers—the United States and China—and other countries, such as Russia, Brazil and India, which are very firmly part of the major powers as regards economic and other matters. Was not, however, the European Union badly divided, with grandstanding and squabbling on a major scale? Does the Chancellor agree that if the European Union, including Britain, is to be listened to in this fundamentally changed order, there must in future be a unified approach, which was manifestly lacking on this occasion?

Alistair Darling: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his appreciation, albeit qualified, of the efforts that we put in. We need to be realistic about what we have achieved today, but there are also grounds for optimism. Even six months ago, I would have found it difficult to imagine that we would be able to get together 20 countries representing 80 per cent. of the world's largest economies and come to a substantial agreement that will, over time, make a significant difference to the prospects of the world economy. That is a very important step.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about fiscal stimulus, particularly in relation to Germany and France. He will know—I think that he made this point the other night—that Germany has put in not just one fiscal stimulus but two, and has put in slightly more than us, even taking into account the automatic stabiliser effect of increased benefits and reduced tax take that both our countries show. France has also put in a fiscal stimulus. It is not a case of their saying, "Do nothing", as some argue—they have done something. As I have said on many occasions, it must be up to each country to decide how much it does and when it does it.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about credit easing—quantitative easing. Of course, within the eurozone that would be a matter not for Germany and France but for the European Central Bank, which is yet to make any proposals in that regard.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to sustainability and the exit strategy. As I said to the House on Tuesday, whatever we do and wherever we do it, we must support our economy now, but we must also be sure that in the medium term, as we come out of this, we live within our means. All countries have to do that. The exit strategy specifically refers to the banks, in which regard the Government's policy remains, as I have stated before—I think that the hon. Gentleman and I are in complete agreement— one of returning these banks to the private sector, commercially operated albeit properly regulated and supervised, when we can do that.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about tax havens, on which action is necessary, and he asked why we did not take action before. That is another example of the fact that, for years, many countries—many of which were represented at the G20 today—did not want to know about taking action on tax havens, as he well knows. That mood has changed. One of the planks of President Obama's election campaign was that America should do something about the issue. We now have an environment in which it is far easier to take action, and it is interesting to note that in the past few weeks, when countries have known that they might be named and shamed, there has been a flurry of activity as countries have said, "We've decided we're going to sign up to international obligations." That shows that action works.
	The hon. Gentleman made a general point about the European Union, and I believe that where it is possible to reach agreement, we should. Having spoken to people over the past 48 hours or so, I found that the differences between various countries in the EU, the United States, ourselves and anyone else were far less significant than it may have appeared in reporting to the public. What was announced and achieved today will be seen as a significant step forward, provided that we make sure that we implement it, and make sure that the benefits are passed on to the people who elect us.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Madam Deputy Speaker: Many Members are hoping to catch my eye. I will, therefore, insist on a brief single question so that we can have a concise reply. More may then be successful in making a contribution.

John McFall: The sterile debate about whether to have a fiscal stimulus or not has been put into context today by these welcome measures to reflate the world economy and kick-start trade. But the Chancellor knows that this crisis has a human face, with millions of people becoming jobless over the coming months. According to the World Bank, 54 million people in the low-income countries will be put into absolute poverty. Does he agree that there is a moral imperative to continue policies that alleviate such distress to individuals, and will that be taken up in the G20 meeting in the autumn?

Alistair Darling: I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend. It is estimated that 90 million people throughout the world were at risk of falling into poverty if we did not take action. That is one of the reasons today's outcome is to be welcomed. We now have to make sure that we see the process through. One of the purposes of the second meeting later this year will be to ensure that pressure is kept on countries to deliver what they have signed up to.

Michael Fallon: Would the Chancellor explain more fully why the Prime Minister said at his press conference that there had been an agreement on a common approach to the toxic assets, when that is not in the communiqué? Some countries are isolating their assets, others are trying to sell them off, and here at home the right hon. Gentleman is trying to insure them. Where is the common approach?

Alistair Darling: The common approach is that all of us agree that we need to isolate and then remove the effect of toxic assets on the ability of banks to lend. That can be accomplished through insurance, which is what we are doing here, or through the so-called good bank-bad bank split, which we have taken here on two occasions. It can involve a combination of the public and private sector—something that we are doing partially, and which the Americans are doing. It is important—and the Chairman of the Select Committee is looking at this—that we use the right approach. It will vary from country to country, and it will vary from bank to bank, but the right approach must be to get lending going. That is a common approach.

Geoffrey Robinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we on the Government Benches very much congratulate the Prime Minister and him on the stunning success of getting this G20 conference held, and on the results they have obtained, particularly the $5 trillion increase in the funds put into the world economy? That is key to generating the confidence that we badly need to sustain us coming out of the recession.

Alistair Darling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is a major step forward, but, as I said before, it is important that as people leave London tomorrow, they start to make sure that everything we have agreed is delivered.

Patrick Cormack: As one who genuinely hopes that today's understandable euphoria will be followed by lasting satisfaction, may I ask the Chancellor a specific question about his statement? He says that the immediate cause of the crisis is a failure in the global financial sector and in global financial regulation. Is he completely confident that the regulations that will be imposed in countries around the world are mutually compatible?

Alistair Darling: First, I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments. I have been accused of being euphoric on very few occasions, but I am none the less grateful to him. He asks a perfectly pertinent question. It is important that we now accept that there need to be common rules because we have a global financial system. I think that there is much agreement about that. In Europe, our attitudes must change—there need to be common rules and a common approach, but that is not inconsistent with having national supervisors and regulators, because we need a regulator near the ground and the people they regulate. Everything that we have experienced demonstrates in huge amounts the need for closer co-operation. I hope that we can achieve that on a global basis and in the European Union.

Ian McCartney: I thank my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for holding their nerve in the past few months, when the Opposition have poured buckets of abuse over them on a daily basis. Without holding their nerve, the G20 would never have happened and we would not have the stimulus we have got.
	In the statement, my right hon. Friend talked about assisting the poor. In his busy schedule in the next few weeks, will he meet me and some colleagues to discuss additional measures to help poor borrowers in the United Kingdom, who are suffering extremely difficult times, especially in the home loan and high street sectors?

Alistair Darling: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend. He is right that we need to do everything we can to help people, especially those on low incomes, in this country. Throughout his time as a Minister and in the many jobs that he held in Government, he spent considerable time trying to ensure that we did more to help low paid people, not only those who had lost money, but those who were in fear of exploitation. It is equally important to have exactly the same approach to people on low incomes throughout the world. I am glad that the need to tackle that was specifically addressed in the communiqué.

Iain Duncan Smith: In answer to the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) and to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) about the fiscal stimulus, the Chancellor set out what others had already done. He knows that, in the run-up to the G20, the Prime Minister went round the world talking about a further stimulus, not what had been done. Is not the reality that the G20 was originally set up around the further stimulus and the Prime Minister's desire for the world to follow that? He has not succeeded—Germany and France have clearly got their way. Does the Chancellor, who is recorded as possibly being in favour of being against that further stimulus, think that it is a good or a bad thing that France and Germany won?

Alistair Darling: I am not sure whether it is possible to be in favour of being against something, but I shall ponder that. The right hon. Gentleman is plain wrong. It is clear from the discussions this morning and from the declaration that:
	"We are committed to deliver the scale of sustained fiscal effort necessary to restore growth."
	Every country signed up to it. The Conservatives are the only people who are against that.

Alun Michael: My right hon. Friend referred in cautiously optimistic terms to getting a kick-start to the world trade talks. The Prime Minister has been consistent in his support for development and for fair as well as free trade. How confident and optimistic is my right hon. Friend that those talks, when they restart, will help encourage the principles of fair trade and the sustainability of developing economies?

Alistair Darling: We have to be optimistic because it is important to get a satisfactory conclusion. President Obama has made it clear that he takes that extremely seriously—he understands his country's obligation on that. I appreciate the obvious problems of an incoming Administration; they want to take stock of several matters. However, the President's commitment to what my right hon. Friend raises, and his support for what we agreed today, is important. America has a key role to play in the world and I am glad that President Obama has made it clear that he intends to play his full part.

Michael Spicer: Now that, by his account, the Chancellor has had his day of glory, what is the point of this Government?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman has asked some ridiculous questions in his time in the House. Given the scale of what we are facing and the scale of the problems faced by people in this country and across the world, particularly people in emerging economies, people who are living in poverty and people who run the risk of falling back into poverty, I would have thought that anyone looking at the situation would say that now is the time for Governments to act and support them, not to turn their backs on them and walk away.

Derek Twigg: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister on the excellent work that they have put in to ensure the success of the G20. Is the issue now not about ensuring that the benefits that come from what has been agreed today get to people as quickly as possible, including those in Halton who are losing their jobs and houses, and to businesses, so that they have hope for the future, and about ensuring that the institutions that are responsible for getting that help to them are brought together quickly and that action is taken?

Alistair Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend that that is important. That is why we should continue to do everything we can here to help people who lose their jobs. It is important, too, that we remember the effect of public investment in transport, for example, of which he will be well aware. And who knows? One day, I hope not in the too distant future, we might get to visit the bridge that he has advocated for so many years. I certainly look forward to seeing it one day, as I think that I approved it.

Robert Smith: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), the Chancellor did not clarify whether the European Central Bank had the power to introduce quantitative easing if it so wished or whether the Royal Bank of Scotland would be doubling pay rates to get around the fact that it would not be paying bonuses.

Alistair Darling: In relation to RBS, I need to get back to the hon. Gentleman. In relation to the ECB, which is a slightly different matter, the bank would need to consider what options it had. It would also have to discuss the matter with members of the euro group. However, I am sure that they recognise that they may have to look at other options—the interest rates were cut again today in Europe—although that is a matter for them. We are not in the euro; we are responsible for our own Bank, and we shall have to see what the ECB decides to do.

Gavin Strang: My right hon. Friend is right to be cautious, but surely it is already clear that the London G20 summit has been a success. Although it is true that there are still toxic assets in the banking system, which is a problem, and that unemployment will continue to rise for a good many months yet—and not just here, but elsewhere—are we not beginning to see grounds for some optimism? He is right to refer to the position six months ago. Are we not seeing a situation in which it looks as though the 1930s will not be repeated in this global downturn?

Alistair Darling: My right hon. Friend is right: there are certainly lessons to be learnt from the 1930s, when there was an attempt, which failed, to get countries to come together. It was not until the end of the second world war that countries sat down and started to plan for the peace and look at the international institutions and the action that they might need in future. What has happened shows that we can take action and that we can take it quickly.
	There is some way to go yet—I am naturally cautious about these things—but the measures and the agreement reached today will be a significant help, provided that we see them through to conclusion. I think that they will be a significant help and I think that Governments can make a difference. If I did not, I, like many others, would not be here anyway. Governments can make a difference; perhaps the difference between us in this House is that I think that Governments need to make a difference and that they need to act.

Peter Viggers: Although the steps announced by the Chancellor are broadly to be welcomed, does he agree that they all have a tendency to be inflationary and that the situation could change quite quickly, especially as the amounts of money borrowed by this and other Governments are so large that Governments may tolerate inflation, because that will help them to reduce their debt burden? Will he promise never to take his eye off the ball and ignore the risk that explosive inflation could cause?

Alistair Darling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is right that we always have to be vigilant about inflation. When he has an opportunity to look at the communiqué—I appreciate that he will not have seen it for perfectly understandable reasons—he will see that it acknowledges that risk.

Nia Griffith: My right hon. Friend may be aware that last year I introduced a ten-minute Bill that would have prevented the awarding of PFI contracts to companies that avoid UK tax through the use of tax havens. Can he tell me how the G20's excellent start on tackling tax havens will be progressed, so that Bills such as mine will become unnecessary and billions of additional pounds will flow into Government coffers worldwide?

Alistair Darling: The agreement that we reached today made it clear that we wanted to have a crackdown on tax havens. The OECD has published a list of the countries that it regards as compliant, those that have indicated that they are ready to comply, and those that have not. Over the next few weeks and months, it will be important as we move to the next stage that we bring pressure to bear on those countries, using whatever sanctions are thought appropriate, to ensure that we end these tax havens. They are grossly unfair and grossly inefficient, and we need to stop them.

Nicholas Winterton: Following up on the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Sir Peter Viggers), may I ask the Chancellor where all this money is coming from? How will it impact on inflation in the short and medium term? Will there be any benefit whatever—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I did ask for single questions.

Nicholas Winterton: Well, I am very quick—much quicker than some other Members. Will there be any benefit for savers—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Bank of England has a responsibility to target the Government's inflation rate and that it is for the Bank to decide what action is appropriate to ensure that we support that target.

David Kidney: The Government—and especially the Prime Minister—deserve congratulations on achieving a broad range of agreements from such a diverse range of countries. Given sterling's competitiveness internationally at the moment, what, if anything, in today's agreement will help those sectors of our economy—such as agriculture and manufacturing—that would in normal circumstances expect to benefit from a growth in exports?

Alistair Darling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; he is right to say that we have an opportunity to capitalise on our exports. We produce very good quality exports and it is therefore important that we have markets in which to sell them. For example, one of the reasons we support Germany putting money into its economy is that we sell goods into Germany. We also sell goods into developing countries. When people ask why we are concerned about what is going on in these other economies, the answer is quite simple. It is because our exports, and therefore our jobs, depend on them.

Michael Jack: The effectiveness of a complex package such as this lies in the detail of its implementation, so who among the G20 has taken responsibility for ensuring that all parties that have made commitments in the agreement today actually deliver what they have committed to?

Alistair Darling: The right hon. Gentleman raises a perfectly pertinent point. The test will be in the implementation of this agreement. The answer to his question depends on the particular measure, but the IMF, for example, has now been given a commitment of more funds by certain countries. There have been commitments in respect of China, Japan and the European Union, though it must be ensured that it gets the rest of the money. It is the IMF's job to ensure that it can negotiate quickly with countries seeking help, and to ensure that the money gets there. Equally, there has been agreement to get money to the development banks. We contribute quite substantially to them through the Department for International Development. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we have to ensure that all the organisations involved—many of them international—actually implement what they have signed up to.

Derek Wyatt: As well as thanking the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I hope that we will also give our thanks to the noble Lord Malloch-Brown, the G20 envoy, who has done sterling work. The question that my constituents will be asking this evening is: is the G20 the new G8? They will wonder what the point of the G8 is, if we also need China, India and Brazil. My question relates to the financial stability board. Will the four major audit companies of the world have new regulations and be part of a new corporate governance approach?

Alistair Darling: In relation to the profound question, "What is the meaning of the G8?", I am tempted to answer, "Discuss." That subject has been discussed for many years. At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, I may say that the advantage of the G8 is that there are fewer people round the table to have a conversation with. The G20 brings in a lot more, and recognises the reality of today's economic power, which is why the G20 meeting has developed a great deal of momentum. However, these discussions will continue. There are also sensitivities among countries not in the G20 that believe that they, too, need a greater voice in some of these international discussions.

Angus MacNeil: On behalf of the Scottish National party, may I, too, welcome the measures to boost aid and action for developing countries, and the announcement in the communiqué about stronger financial regulation? The Prime Minister spoke at the ExCeL centre today about the world joining and acting in concert, and today's communiqué talks about doing what it takes to restore global growth. In the United States, President Obama is also investing in a fiscal stimulus, as the Chancellor will know, but Barack Obama seems to have a greater understanding of how to spend it at state level rather than adopt the centralised approach of the UK, which hardly represents acting jointly. In the UK, the Governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are unhappy at this time that their budgets are to be cut in the next two years. To achieve meaningful effects for ordinary people, surely the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member has now completed his remarks.

Alistair Darling: I think that the hon. Gentleman was largely being complimentary about what has been done. At the risk of being churlish, I put one point to him: that this matter rather demonstrates, does it not, what the United Kingdom can achieve in helping to shape the destiny of the world. What has happened over the last few months and in today's meeting demonstrate that the UK can deliver a lot, not just for the people that live in this country, but for the wider world.

Gordon Prentice: How much additional revenue does the Chancellor expect to get as a consequence of the crackdown on tax havens, and what happens to countries that refuse to co-operate in the exchange of tax information?

Alistair Darling: On the first question, I cannot provide an estimate today because much will depend on the way in which the agreement is actually implemented. Equally, on sanctions, we will need to discuss what happens, but it is important to maintain the momentum. As I said to the House earlier, under threat of being named and shamed, many countries were coming forward after years of saying they did not want to co-operate, to say that they wanted to sign up, and sign up quickly. That does help us, but it will work only if we maintain that momentum and do not let people think that once the storm has blown over, they can go back to the old ways.

Graham Brady: The whole House supports greater transparency in offshore financial centres, but will the Chancellor confirm that the British publicly owned banks will remain free to set their own policies in relation to tax, within the law, or will he seek to direct their decisions?

Alistair Darling: The banks in which we have shareholdings, just like any other banks or institutions, have to obey the law. In relation to tax, they have to comply with the tax law of this country.

Barry Gardiner: Given that the world currently consumes each year the resources that the planet takes one year and four months to renew or replace, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is just as important that the G20 should have examined not only the credit bubble and fallout in the global economy, but the credit bubble in the global environment?

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend raises a very important point. It is important to take account of the sustainability of everything we do, and this is an opportunity. I cannot remember which Opposition Member raised the point, but we have done a great deal over the last few years to increase the amount of money we spend in order to tackle climate change and protect our environment. We have introduced legislation—I think we are the only country so far legally to bind itself to meet demanding targets—providing another example of what can be done. As my hon. Friend knows, there is reference to the need to have regard to the long-term sustainability of what we do, so perhaps today's event should give heart to those who are aware of the importance of the Copenhagen meeting at the end of the year, when we really will need to sign up to some ambitious targets and be bound by them.

Peter Bottomley: My constituency is one of those with a greater number of people out of work now than in February 1997, so getting jobs and trade going is important. It also has many pensioners. Will the Chancellor publish a review of the impact of the present crisis on pensioners and people soon to be pensioners, and on their savings, their income and the prospects of inflation taking away from them the income they have tried to squirrel away for their old age?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to ensure that we support older people—people who have retired. That is one of the reasons we introduced pension credit, which helps about half the pensioner households in the country. It is also why we made a £60 payment to pensioners earlier this year in order to put more money in their pockets. I am sorry that he opposed that.

Harry Cohen: Will the Chancellor convey my congratulations to the Prime Minister on bringing forward this world response to the global crisis? Does he accept, however, that it was the private investment banks that brought about the crisis by engaging in reckless speculation and building up toxic loans? My constituents want an assurance that conditions are in place to prevent those banks from doing that ever again. Can the Chancellor give that assurance?

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend is right that we need to ensure that there is more robust supervision and regulation of these institutions. The only point I would raise—I would not disagree with him on it, but simply make an observation—is that, sadly, it was not just the investment banks that were responsible; it was also banks that were largely engaged in retail lending, such as Northern Rock. As we saw earlier in the week, part of the building society sector has been affected as well. I think that there are lessons to be drawn right across the financial services sector.

Sarah Teather: Does the Chancellor recognise that our ability to meet the millennium development goals to which he referred in his statement may be very adversely affected by the impact of climate change on the world's poorest countries? What hope does he have for a serious global deal at Copenhagen, given that the statements about the environment that emerged from the G20 today appear to be disappointingly vague?

Alistair Darling: Today's meeting reaffirmed the commitment to the millennium development goals. It is also important for countries not just to sign up to such goals, but to do what is necessary. I very much hope that Copenhagen is a success, but as the hon. Lady will know, while most Governments accept that climate change is a reality and that we need to do something about it, that view is not universally held. Moreover, some countries which acknowledge that climate change is a problem are not willing to do as much about it as they should. Today's meeting, however, showed that if there is a will, there is a way of getting through this, and the same spirit must be shown in Copenhagen later this year.

Christopher Chope: As a result of the G20, to what extent will the growth in the United Kingdom's economy be restored sooner than would otherwise be the case? Can the Chancellor put a figure on that, in terms of days or months? This is the sort of question to which my constituents want an answer, given that unemployment in my constituency has risen by 184 per cent. in a single year.

Alistair Darling: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should be concerned about anyone who loses a job, but my answer is rather different from his. I think that we actually need to do something about it. As for my forecast, he will have to wait until the Budget.

John Maples: I hope that I am not reading too much into the Chancellor's desire to remove the stigma of going to the International Monetary Fund. If he has been checking the IMF's phone number, perhaps he should let us know.
	The Chancellor said that the communiqué dealt with bank regulation. May I make a suggestion to him? I think that what is needed is not heavier or lighter or more expensive regulation, but more intelligent regulation. Regulators tend to regulate the problem that happened before, rather than looking forward and paying attention to things that are happening that may produce problems. We have never had a bigger regulatory apparatus than the Financial Services Authority, and it has failed. Will the Chancellor ensure that whatever reforms are instituted, nationally or internationally, include an effort to make regulation more intelligent and more forward-looking?

Alistair Darling: I have said on many occasions that what we need is effective regulation. That is the test, so I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point.

Andrew Pelling: In his statement, the Chancellor referred to an extra $250 billion in export credit. What additional export credit will come from the United Kingdom Government for UK manufacturers and other people in business?

Alistair Darling: We are looking into that at the moment, and I hope that we shall have something to say about it in the not-too-distant future.

William Cash: The Chancellor referred to national supervision in relation to financial regulation, but in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) he also referred to common European rules. Will he categorically rule out the idea that the supervision of financial services and banking will be handed over to the European institutions and, ultimately, to the legal jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice? Yes or no?

Alistair Darling: I thought that the hon. Gentleman would ask a question like that. As soon as I mentioned the word "Europe", he perked up.
	We probably will not agree on this, but I think that, especially when we know that there are banks and insurance companies trading in this country and throughout Europe, it makes sense for there to be a greater degree of co-operation—in the event of failure, for example—in the form of a common approach and a common set of rules. However, I also said that I believe that we do need to make sure that we have national supervisors and regulators who are responsible for regulating institutions based in this country. All I say to the hon. Gentleman is that at some stage, surely, he and his colleagues should recognise that the world has moved on; we are part of the European Union and he should wake up to that reality.

Shailesh Vara: My hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor asked a specific question to which he did not receive an answer. He asked how much of the finance that is proposed is new money and how much is money that is recycled and has already been announced. Will the Chancellor kindly address that question and give a precise breakdown?

Alistair Darling: I thought I had given the indication in my statement when I set out the money that was additional in relation to the International Monetary Fund, and other areas as well.

David Tredinnick: What assurances can the Chancellor give me that some of this vast increase in money will go to hard-pressed manufacturing in the midlands, which is finding things so difficult at present, and will he give the House an assurance that it will not go to supporting public sector jobs, which do not create wealth?

Alistair Darling: In relation to the hon. Gentleman's first point, I think it is important that we support industry in the midlands and in other parts of the country as well. Indeed, part of what we have been trying to do in the banking system to get credit flowing again is precisely to help businesses. I disagree with him in relation to the public sector. The public sector does support jobs, and each and every one of us relies to one degree or another on the public sector. I would also just say this to him specifically: if it were not for public sector construction at present, the construction industry would be facing an even tougher time. So I think the public sector does help, and I disagree with his party's proposal to take £5 billion out of the public services, starting yesterday.

Peter Bone: Why is the Chancellor optimistic about concluding the Doha development round now in a recession and when countries are introducing protectionist measures, when it could not be concluded when economies were growing?

Alistair Darling: What I said was that we have to be optimistic because the alternative is much worse. Rather like exuberance, optimism is another thing that I am not accused of every day of the week. The hon. Gentleman's second point is important—although perhaps he did not intend to put it in the way that he did. He said that this is more difficult to do especially at a time like this when there is a downturn. The lesson from the 1930s is surely this: when there is a downturn, the temptation is to erect barriers, and that is what happened in the 1930s, with the result that the recession lasted right the way through, and it was really only at the time of the second world war that countries sat down and realised what had happened. That is why I say we have to be optimistic: we need, especially at this time, to look at breaking down trade barriers, because if we cannot sell goods and services to other countries, all of us will be poorer. That is why I think this is so important.

Philip Dunne: I am extremely grateful for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Restoring confidence is key. The Chancellor said in answer to a question from one of my hon. Friends that we all need to live within our means. Now, after the Chancellor has ripped up his predecessor's fiscal rules, what confidence can the markets, and particularly the gilt market, take from today's statement that this Government will live within their means?

Alistair Darling: It is important that all Governments— [Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has lost interest already; I know he has been standing for a long time, but having asked his question, he might at least wait for the answer. I think it is important, first, that Governments support their economies just now, but also that they recognise the need to make sure they live within their means. That is recognised in the communiqué as well. There are two parts to this approach, and I disagree with the hon. Gentleman that it is somehow wrong to support the economy and that we should just wait and hope for the best. That was tried in the '80s and the 1990s and it did not work.

Business without Debate

Business of the house

Motion made,
	That, at the sitting on Tuesday 21 April, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business) the Private Business set down by the Chairman of Ways and Means shall be entered upon (whether before, at or after 7.00 pm), and may then be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours, after which the Speaker shall interrupt the business.— (Helen Jones.)

Hon. Members: Object.

SCIENCE AND INNOVATION (SEDGEFIELD)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —(Helen Jones.)

Phil Wilson: I am grateful to have secured this Adjournment debate on science and innovation in Sedgefield. It gives me the opportunity to describe how the area has changed over recent years, and how it has reached out and grasped the technologies of the future that, only 10 years ago, belonged to the pages of science fiction, but which now are the fledgling companies of economic growth based on cutting-edge technological advances and innovation. That statement is not one usually associated with an area of the country whose traditional image remains, for a lot of people, one of coal mining. Today, I want to challenge that traditional view.
	The slag heaps and pitheads have gone now, and those who are not from the area would find it very difficult to identify where they once scarred the landscape, because of the excellent reclamation work done by Durham county council. Even today, I am asked on occasion in London, when people realise I represent a constituency in the north-east, how long it takes to get there by train. "Does it take five hours?", they ask. In fact, it does not. To Darlington, my usual station stop, the train journey can be less than two hours 30 minutes from King's Cross.
	I have heard it said that the location of the centre of science and innovation in Sedgefield, at NETPark, is not geographically correct because it is away from other centres of research and development, such as Oxford and Cambridge. I put such a statement down to a lack of understanding of what is going on in the area. It ignores the fact that Durham university, only a few miles away from Sedgefield, is one of the best universities in the world. If I may say so, that statement is infused with just a hint of regional snobbishness. The north-east is not on the other side of the world, and in our globalised economy the world is at our doorstep, not even a train journey away.
	The last coal mine to close in Sedgefield was at Fishburn in 1974, some 35 years ago. The local coke works, also at Fishburn, closed in the mid-1980s. Both have gone, leaving a strong sense of community behind, but as I said, those who are not from the area would not know where the slag heaps and pithead stood, or where the chimneys at the coke works belched their stench into the sky.
	Less than a mile to the south of Fishburn, on the site of an old psychiatric hospital, stands a cluster of less imposing buildings that are none the less important for the future prosperity of my constituents, County Durham and the north-east as a whole. This is NETPark, which is to play its part in creating a knowledge economy in County Durham in which tomorrow's jobs can be created today. It is fair to say that the north-east still faces significant economic problems, and although we are in the midst of a global economic downturn, progress has been made locally. Educational attainment levels are improving. The number of adults with qualifications and the number of businesses per head of population has increased above the national average. Today, there are 590 apprentices in my constituency; in 1997, there were, on average, only 20 per constituency.
	NETPark is part of the north-east's strategy of building on those foundations by expanding the knowledge economy in the region and attracting high-value jobs with roots in the region, so that the prosperity of the north-east can grow. County Durham and the north-east have some world-class economic assets such as Durham university, which is ranked among the world's top research institutes. The university has strong links with NETPark and is one of the primary reasons NETPark is now seen as the most important science and technology park in the north-east.
	What does the development of the knowledge economy mean for County Durham? The County Durham economic strategy 2008-13 sets out an ambitious programme, which underlines the importance of science and innovation for the county by growing the base of science and technology businesses. The most important ambition—it is starting to be realised but there is still much to do—is to commercialise the county's knowledge base and to increase the rate of spin-out and start-up companies emerging from NETPark, while working with One North East and others to address financial and other barriers to commercialisation, including manufacturing capacity.
	The vision for me, as someone who has lived in the area all his life, is to ensure that the traditional industry of coal mining upon which the economy of County Durham was built over generations, and for which the county was known and is still remembered, is replaced by the traditional industry of science and innovation; and that, because of home-grown expertise, knowledge, imagination and determination, that industry remains a tradition long into a future in which change is a constant because of innovation, and the opportunities offered become part of the community, because cutting-edge opportunities are the way of life in the community. That will not happen overnight, but I do not see why such ambition cannot be realised in the long term.
	NETPark is one of the key drivers in achieving that ambition. Let me tell the House about NETPark and what it has to offer. It was opened in 2004. The park was developed by Durham county council and is managed and promoted by County Durham Development Company. Its main focus is on nanotechnology, photonics, microsystems, energy, medical technology and printable electronics. The park is overseen by an advisory group, including One North East and the vice-chancellors of five universities in the north-east.
	Let me describe just three of the technologies under development. ROAR Particles plc is a company based on the park. It is dedicated to the research, development and manufacture of nanotechnology-derived particles for forensics and counter-terrorism. The company has world-leading patented technologies that are not only superior to existing commercial products, but produce a whole new range of analysis. Using the particles as a powder, they can identify chemicals within minutes from a fingerprint, thus helping with the elimination of suspects and saving the police time and money.
	Using the ROAR powder, fingerprints can be used to identify whether the person has been in contact with explosives, whether he or she smokes, has taken drugs such as cocaine or is using prescription drugs. Further research is under way to allow fingerprints to reveal the person's gender, ethnicity and age. I have also been told that, over time, the technology will be able to tell from a fingerprint what someone has had for breakfast.
	Kromek uses a unique process for producing semiconductor crystals that dramatically reduces the cost of manufacturing X-ray scanners for security and medical applications, and improves the quality of the images and the speed at which they are produced. The company has attracted several millions dollars-worth of investment from US equity firm Amphion Innovations and is in talks with BAE Systems, the European Space Agency and Philips. The company opened on NETPark in January 2005, at which time there were two employees—today there are more than 40, and that figure is set to rise to more than 250 within three years. The company has won awards for its revolutionary work in colour X-ray technology and its development of X-ray explosives scanners.
	The Printable Electronics Technology Centre— PETEC—was opened last month by the Business Secretary, Lord Mandelson. As part of the opening celebration that week, 200 visiting chief executive officers and leaders of businesses from 10 countries attended a two-day event at PETEC, which shows the importance of, and the high regard for, the contribution that the UK and PETEC are making to this technology. PETEC was established with a joint investment of £6.3 million from One North East and the County Durham Economic Partnership, which included £5 million from The Northern Way. A further £3.8 million of capital investment was sourced from the European regional development funds, and the Technology Strategy Board contributed £2.1 million towards the first platform of equipment installation in the centre.
	Printed or plastic electronics are set to revolutionise consumer electronics with the introduction of electronics printed on to plastic and paper products; there will be an impact across most sectors—the automotive, retailing, energy, health care, design and fashion sectors—from new low-energy lighting and flexible rollable displays, among other applications. I am pleased that PETEC is the UK's high-tech, national centre for the development of the printed electronics industry.
	The UK is often criticised for being good at early stage science and invention, but poor at commercialisation. The scale of investment needed to develop new concepts to the point of commercial revenue is typically 60 times that of the initial research spend—many products and many small companies fail at that stage. PETEC has been set up to provide support for this type of activity. It works hand-in-hand with universities and industry to drive the exploitation of this technology, and by de-risking this early stage of development, it will greatly increase the rate at which plastic electronics will be delivered to the wider market place.
	At this time of global economic downturn, the introduction of new and innovative products is exactly what is needed to persuade the consumer to start purchasing again and to encourage the economic cycle to move on. This emerging industry is addressing those very issues. The launch of PETEC is the UK's latest substantial commitment to this sector. PETEC has already become involved in accelerating the commercialisation of new products by incubating early applications with industry—both small and medium-sized enterprises, and large companies. The Government and One North East are to be celebrated for realising this opportunity at this time.
	Last week, the Select Committee on Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills published "Engineering: turning ideas into reality", a report that used PETEC as a case study. It also highlighted the importance of this technology to the UK economy, when it stated on page 31:
	"IDTechEx—a company that provides global analysis of the printed electronics industry—estimated that the worldwide market for printed electronics will increase from $1.18 billion in 2007 to $48 billion by 2017 and $330 billion by 2027".
	To put it bluntly, I want a piece of that action for the British economy and the economy of the north-east of England.
	The impact of PETEC on County Durham has already been felt. Following a strategic operations review in 2006, there was a serious prospect of the closure of Thorn Lighting in County Durham with jobs transferred to eastern Europe. That was averted by the intervention of the County Durham Development Company and One North East, which led discussions with Durham university—PETEC—and Thorn's parent company, Zumtobel. In consequence, 600 jobs were safeguarded and a previously manufacturing-only facility has had 10-plus research and development jobs created so that the company can access PETEC and university facilities and expertise.
	The Select Committee report that I mentioned earlier recommends, in paragraph 130m that
	"the Government...engage with the plastic electronics community, and...articulate a strategic vision for the development of this innovative industry."
	Can the Minister tell me how his Department intends to engage with the industry? Can I ask him, or his ministerial colleague Lord Drayson, to meet representatives from PETEC, the County Durham Development Company and others to discuss the potential that both PETEC and NETPark offer, and to travel to Sedgefield to see the vision in person?
	Lord Drayson, in his oral evidence to the Committee, said:
	"The next six to nine months is going to be very important indeed for SMEs. The opportunity is there to work with the financial institutions to ensure that, particularly in the £200,000 to £2 million range of funding, we make sure that adequate capital is available."
	The Select Committee report at paragraph 118 also states:
	"However, a thorough review of the support offered to businesses as they transition from early stage R&D to manufacture may be required if UK companies are to be world-leading in production rather than just research."
	Will the Minister let me know his view on those points raised by the Committee, and will he say what progress has been made in securing capital in the £200,000 to £2 million range from financial institutions? Those issues could be stumbling blocks in the future.
	The Government are to be congratulated on the work that they have done in securing revenue streams for the science and innovation field that were not there before.
	I want to see NETPark develop and offer employment to people in the area whose families probably came to Sedgefield over the generations to work down the mines. Those jobs should not just be cleaning windows and cutting grass, but innovative jobs so they can have work in the traditional industries of the future. In those jobs, my constituents should be able to learn new skills and, although change might be a constant, it should not be change that they fear, but change that they can enjoy because they are in control of it and because they too are part of the knowledge economy. That is why I strongly endorse this Government's approach to education for the many, not the few.
	I also want to welcome NETPark's role in developing what is called an innovation connector, which will help engage local businesses, establish science networks and engage the local community. Innovation connectors provide a particular geographical focus for science and innovation activities, which will drive overall regional growth and at the same time boost the regeneration of a particular locality. They will enable the development of world-class facilities and new approaches to integrating business and universities, and will engage communities, particularly through education, awareness raising and access to employment programmes.
	The innovation connector will be either located within, or in proximity to, localities that are experiencing particular disadvantages and which have limited cohesion with more prosperous parts of the region. Specific actions will be implemented to align investment and enable these excluded areas and groups to access and benefit from investment in growth. The concept is intended to link areas of need directly to new areas of opportunity.
	As an identified innovation connector, NETPark is being supported through public funding with European regional development fund match funding to enable expansion and connectivity with other regionally funded activities and the local community. The programme of activity is drawn together through an investment plan, with a potential ERDF investment of up to £14 million. These projects are in development and there is no certainty that they will be successful in their application for ERDF and other funding. However, it is anticipated that a number of them will proceed to delivery.
	As NETPark grows in importance I want to see it become an integral part of the local community, and for there to be a sense of ownership and civic pride in it. That will come when jobs are created as the park grows in size and importance. NETPark is a real success story for Sedgefield and County Durham. It is a true centre of excellence in science, technology and engineering that will be a key driving force behind the county and the regional economy in the future.
	We are going through a global economic downturn. One day that will end and facilities such as NETPark, where the public and private sectors have worked together, will stand astride a burgeoning landscape of science and innovation ready to take on the 21st century. NETPark's vision is to be a world-renowned science park, leading developments in the commercialisation of research and development in electronic and related technologies and spinning out manufacturing and service companies across the county while connecting the whole of County Durham as a science park via NETPark Net, which will connect NETPark to businesses in County Durham and the rest of the region. Finally, it hopes to be the home to high-value business throughout the county, offering job opportunities for local people.
	Although clean coal technology should have a future, the coal industry in County Durham will never be the same as it used to be, although the principles of compassion and solidarity remain in our communities. The coal mining era in Sedgefield has ended—may the new era of science and innovation in Sedgefield begin.

David Lammy: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) on securing this debate. His deep concern for the economic prospects of Sedgefield and its people is well known and he has raised this issue in the House on a number of occasions. As recently as 12 March, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had the pleasure of joining him in welcoming the opening of the Printable Electronics Technology Centre, or PETEC, in his constituency.
	My hon. Friend's determination to focus on his constituency's future is all the more commendable because, as he mentioned, it is no secret that Sedgefield is an area that has known hard times in the past. In the early 1930s, one in eight men in this country was unemployed. In Sedgefield, it was one in three. Everyone knows how badly the whole of County Durham suffered over a period of years from the contraction of the mining industry, culminating in the terrible winter of 1984-85. We all welcome the passion with which he brings this debate to the House and the manner in which he talks about the prospects for Sedgefield. We are very pleased that there is a revival. As my hon. Friend said, one industry is gone but the prospects for the young people of Sedgefield, in particular, to engage in science and innovation and to be at the cutting edge of this country's future must be maintained.
	Anyone who still thinks of Sedgefield and its surrounding area as a monument to lost industries needs to revise their opinions. A dozen years of effort and investment have turned it into one of the most economically exciting parts of this country. Sedgefield showed the world its capacity to innovate in 1997, when it returned to Parliament the first Labour Prime Minister in 18 years. With initiatives such as PETEC, it is continuing to prove a source of new and exciting ideas. That excitement is one reason why I very much welcome the fact that some of the £13 million of funding that the centre has received has come from my Department through the Technology Strategy Board.
	It does not take a scientist to see the great potential that cutting-edge technologies such as plastic electronics have for this country, nor, indeed, how important initiatives such as NETPark are in helping to turn innovations into practical business propositions. The development of new industries and the regeneration of regions such as the north-east have depended very much on such developments. With the ongoing support of Durham county council, One North East and the five north-east universities—I was very pleased to visit Newcastle university just a few weeks ago and to visit the Student Loans Company in the constituency of Darlington—NETPark offers the chance to create high-value, highly paid jobs and to establish an infrastructure of support jobs in professional and community services.
	I know that my noble friend Lord Drayson, the Minister for Science and Innovation, met representatives from One North East and the Science and Industry Council earlier this week. They discussed PETEC and the importance of science, innovation and technology for the entire north-east region, and he is hoping to visit the region and my hon. Friend's constituency later this year.
	It is frequently said that, for every job created in a science park, another 2.5 jobs are created elsewhere, but we know that the ratio has been much higher than that in some places. As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, that fact alone presents a strong argument in favour of Government support for science and knowledge transfer. That is particularly important at times like these.
	My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently gave a lecture at Oxford, in which he said:
	"Some say that now is not the time to invest, but the bottom line is that the downturn is no time to slow down our investment in science but to build more vigorously for the future. And so we will not allow science to become a victim of the recession, but rather focus on developing it as a key element of our path to recovery".
	Indeed, investment in both science and knowledge transfer has reached unprecedented levels under this Government. By 2010, the science budget will have trebled from £1.3 billion in 1997 to more than £4 billion, while public funding for universities will have risen by 30 per cent. in real terms over the same period.
	The Government have also provided more encouragement for universities to engage with businesses and to translate scientific discoveries into commercially marketable products. The higher education innovation fund, which we created, will be worth £150 million a year by the end of the current spending period. Our commitment to securing greater collaboration between higher education and business was reinforced further by last year's "Innovation Nation" White Paper and by our proposals on higher education at work.
	That investment has already been reflected in a greater focus in the private sector on innovative, high-value products and services. In 2000, only 45 per cent. of UK companies were active in innovation, but that figure had risen to 68 per cent. by 2006. Plastic electronics is one of the fields to have benefited in particular from that investment. To date, the Government have invested more than £35 million in over 50 industrial collaborative research projects in that area alone.
	Only a few months ago, the Technology Strategy Board announced approval of a £12 million project, supported by £6 million of grants, to develop full-colour flexible displays. A TSB-funded knowledge transfer network is also helping the development of businesses in plastic electronics supply chains. There are notable clusters around Cambridge in the south-east and in the north-east.
	Those and other measures, such as research and development tax credits, provide substantial support to improve the performance and productivity of companies that are developing new technologies, by helping them to bring new products to market quickly. I know my hon. Friend will join me in acknowledging just how much benefit the Government's support for science, research and technology and knowledge transfer has brought to the economic regeneration not just of his constituency but of his region as a whole.
	My Department welcomes the Select Committee report mentioned by my hon. Friend—"Engineering: turning ideas into reality". Its support for the UK's world-class engineering base is clear. It is quite a thick document, so it will take some time for the Government to respond, but we shall do so in due course. We take very seriously some of the recommendations that have been made.
	The creation of new technologies and new products brings exciting new possibilities for the whole country, and the prospect of new and better jobs for its people. A few moments ago, I mentioned the extent to which the north-east economy suffered during the recessions of the 1930s and the 1980s. I know that the spectre of unemployment is still viewed by many people in the region as a real threat.
	I am delighted that my hon. Friend has brought this debate to the House. The science and innovation in his constituency demonstrate what can be done, and the north-east is fast becoming a powerhouse in that field. I am pleased to support his desire to mobilise even further effort and I know that my noble Friend the Minister looks forward to visiting my hon. Friend's constituency. When I visit universities in the north-east, I, too, am keen to see such developments and, more important, how they work for local people.
	I want to raise one further point, which is about what we now call "skills activism". We recognise that in the economic downturn we will need to be more proactive in helping young people and adults to identify future areas of growth. That will be important in my hon. Friend's constituency, and I suspect it lies behind much that he said towards the end of his speech about pointing his constituents towards what is clearly a much brighter future, notwithstanding the difficult times we are experiencing.
	We in the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills look forward to working with my hon. Friend and the regional development agency. I thank him for bringing the matter to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.